update_memory

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 explains that the update is direct, bypasses LLM inference and deduplication, and preserves memory history. It also clarifies that metadata is replaced, not merged. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover error cases or permissions.

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 well-structured with clear REQUIRED/OPTIONAL sections, a contrast to the sibling tool, concrete examples, and a return-value note. Every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this description covers the main behaviors, parameter semantics, and purpose well. Examples and the store_memory contrast further help an agent. It falls short only by omitting the verbose parameter and not addressing failure behavior when the memory_id does not exist.

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. It documents memory_id, content, and metadata well, including the UUID type and the 'replace existing metadata' semantics. However, the 'verbose' boolean parameter is completely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on an available input. The phrase 'content and/or metadata' is also slightly misleading since content is required by the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('existing memory') and explicitly states what can be modified ('content and/or metadata'). It also names the key alternative, store_memory, and distinguishes this tool from it, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 clearly contrasts this tool with 'store_memory with infer=true', noting that update_memory works directly without LLM processing or deduplication. This gives an agent a clear sense of when to use it. It could be slightly more explicit about when not to use it, but the contrast is strong enough.

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