update_memory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool mutates an existing record and timestamp and explicitly avoids silent creation, which is important. However, it does not describe error handling for missing IDs, partial updates, or other side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The second sentence adds a valuable behavioral caveat without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has seven parameters with no schema descriptions and no parameter documentation in the description, the definition is incomplete. While the behavioral caveat is useful, the description omits essential details about the meaning and usage of the optional fields, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity despite the presence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no textual descriptions for any of the seven parameters. The tool description does not mention any parameters, leaving agents to infer meaning solely from parameter names like 'tags', 'topic', and 'importance', which is insufficient for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing memory') with the condition 'by ID', clearly distinguishing it from create or other operations. It also clarifies it 'never silently creates a replacement', reinforcing that it targets an existing record. This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like forget_memory or list_memories.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: it is for updating an existing memory, and the note 'never silently creates a replacement' implies you should not use it when you intend to create a new memory. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.