memory_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'update' and 'small increments'; it does not explain append/replace semantics, whether a section is created if missing, side effects, destructive potential, or what a successful update returns.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the verb and resource. It could have used space to distinguish from sibling tools, but as written it is efficient.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of sibling memory tools, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot infer when to use this tool, how append vs replace behaves, whether content is preserved, or what a successful response looks like.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the description is not required to repeat parameter details. The description mildly reinforces the section values but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'memory section', and enumerates the four valid sections (architecture, todo, file-map, decisions). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling memory tools like memory_store or memory_compact.

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 phrase 'in small increments' is a weak usage hint, but the description does not say when to use memory_update instead of memory_store, memory_read, memory_compact, or other sibling tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.

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