memory_update

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explains metadata merging and replace_metadata behavior but omits key aspects like how content and tags are updated (overwritten or merged). This partial disclosure earns a 3.

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 three sentences, efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundancy but could be more concise by eliminating minor framing. Overall well-structured.

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 complexity of 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description leaves major gaps: update behavior for content and tags is unspecified. Output schema exists but return values are not mentioned. Incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for metadata and replace_metadata but provides no details about memory_id, content, or tags parameters. This insufficient compensation results in a low score.

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 'Update an existing memory.' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It further details metadata update behavior, distinguishing it from creation or deletion. Among many siblings, 'update' is distinct enough.

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 implies usage for updating memories but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_absorb or memory_merge. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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