memory_bank_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 behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', which indicates a mutation, but does not state whether the update fully replaces the file content, what happens if the file does not exist (error vs. create), or any side effects. No permissions, reversibility, or error handling are mentioned. The description is too terse to give the agent confidence about the operation's behavior.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and object. Nothing extraneous is present, and the length is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 that the tool is a mutation with no safety annotations and simple parameters, the description should clarify the prerequisite (file must exist) and the difference from memory_bank_write. It does not mention that the file must exist or that the operation might fail if it does not. While the schema covers parameters, the description leaves out important context about when and how to use this tool safely, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly in all cases.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of all parameters with straightforward descriptions ('The content of the file', 'The name of the file', 'The name of the project'). The description adds no additional meaning or context about parameter usage, formatting, or dependencies. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no real enhancement.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing memory bank file for a specific project'). It distinguishes itself from siblings through the word 'existing', implying it modifies files that already exist rather than creating new ones. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (memory_bank_write) or explain the difference explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that the file must already exist (via the word 'existing'), but it does not say 'use this for updates only, use memory_bank_write for new files'. An agent is left to infer the usage context from the sibling tool names. This is minimal guidance.

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