trailmem_edit

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

The description mentions automatic refresh of hash, embedding, and search index upon content edits, which is a useful behavioral detail. But it does not discuss other side effects, idempotency, or required permissions, leaving gaps given no annotations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary function and special conditions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 9 parameters and no annotations, the description covers only the core operation and one special case. It lacks parameter details, error conditions, and return value context, making it incomplete for a complex 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 description coverage, the description names a few parameters (content, title, pin, archive_reason) but does not explain their semantics or the full set of 9 parameters. It adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.

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 tool updates a memory's content/title/type/pin or archives it. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trailmem_show and trailmem_store by being the only editing tool, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 use for modifying existing memories, and provides specific archiving conditions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or comparisons with sibling tools.

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