memory_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short. It doesn't say whether the update is partial (only id is required, implying omitted fields are left alone) or a full overwrite, what happens if the id is unknown, or whether a changed importance/type has side effects. Only mutation intent is conveyed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource stated up front and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain partial-update behavior, not-found handling, and the effect of the update; none of that is present. The field enumeration helps somewhat but leaves the agent guessing about core mutation semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does list four of the five parameters (content, type, importance, tags). However it adds no meaning beyond the property names already visible in the schema — no format, scale, or tag-replacement semantics — and id is only implied by 'existing memory'.

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?

Specific verb+resource (update an existing memory) with the updatable fields named, so it is clearly distinguished from memory_remember (create), memory_get/recall (read), and memory_forget (delete). It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, which is what a 5 would require.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to siblings. The word 'existing' weakly implies the id must already exist, but nothing tells the agent to use memory_remember instead when the memory doesn't exist yet.

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