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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates and returns a dictionary, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or behavior for non-existent doc_ids. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 and well-structured, using a standard Args/Returns format. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, and it is easy to scan quickly.

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 presence of an output schema and the relative simplicity of an update operation, the description is mostly complete. It mentions the return format (dictionary with status and details). However, it lacks error-handling context (e.g., what happens if doc_id not found), which would make it more robust.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the tool description provides meaningful explanations for each parameter (doc_id as the target, and category/topic/content as optional updates). This adds value beyond the schema's bare type and default information.

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's action: "Update a memory by ID." This specifies the verb (update), resource (memory), and key identifier (ID), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_memory (create) or delete_memory.

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 existing memories by providing doc_id and optional fields, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over siblings or note any prerequisites. There is no exclusion guidance, making it merely implied rather than explicit.

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