memory_update

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

Discloses two key behaviors beyond the basic update: automatic embedding regeneration on content change and preservation of previous versions. Annotations are minimal (only title and openWorldHint=false), so the description adds value, though it omits details like synchronous behavior or auth requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then additional behaviors. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no unnecessary words.

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 tool with 8 parameters and many siblings, the description is minimal. It covers core behavior but lacks usage guidance, return value information (no output schema), and details about partial updates or interaction with other fields.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'content' parameter (regenerates embedding) but does not enhance understanding of other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing memory', with specific verb and resource. Mentions side effects (embedding regeneration, version preservation) that help differentiate from siblings like memory_append or memory_replace, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 40 sibling tools, the lack of usage context or exclusions makes it difficult for an AI to select appropriately.

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