maimemo_update_note

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and "更新" is consistent with them, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds nothing beyond the annotations — no note that this overwrites existing mnemonic content, and no mention of the explicit user-authorization requirement encoded in confirm.

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?

At four characters this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no wasted padding, but there is also no front-loaded context an agent can act on.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with nested objects, a required authorization flag, and no output schema, a bare "更新助记" leaves the agent without any of the context needed to invoke it responsibly.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies even though the description contributes no parameter detail. The nested body/note descriptions are largely mechanical (one even says "暂无文档"), but the structured schema does the explaining.

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?

"更新助记" (update mnemonic) simply restates the tool name maimemo_update_note in Chinese, giving no additional specificity about what is being updated or how it differs from maimemo_create_note / maimemo_delete_note. It is a tautology of the identifier rather than a clarifying statement of purpose.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus its siblings (create_note, delete_note, update_interpretation, etc.), nor any mention of prerequisites. The only implicit cue is the required confirm parameter from the schema, which the description itself never references.

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