mem_update

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: partial-update semantics (omitted fields preserved) and the 400-character preview with content_truncated marker, along with a path to retrieve the full memory. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence packs two critical behavioral details (partial update and preview truncation) without extra words.

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 medium-complexity update tool with a fully described schema and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, update semantics, response format, and a follow-up action. A minor gap is not explaining how to clear a field (e.g., via null), but this is not critical given the schema allows null values.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description supplements this by clarifying that omitted fields retain their current values, which is essential for understanding how to use the optional parameters. This adds 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 action ('Revise a stored memory') and the resource (memory). It also differentiates from siblings by specifying partial-update behavior ('Fields left out keep their current value'), making it distinct from tools like mem_save or mem_delete.

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 revising existing memories, especially partial updates, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative memory tools or state when not to use it. The pointer to mem_get_observation for full reads is contextually useful but not an alternative for updating.

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