update_memory

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it updates by ID and returns a status dictionary, but misses crucial behavior such as handling of non-existent IDs, whether unspecified fields are left unchanged, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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: a one-sentence purpose, followed by an Args section for each parameter and a Returns section. No redundancy, every sentence adds value.

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 simple update tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It misses edge-case behavior like invalid IDs, but given the presence of an output schema and simple params, it's largely complete. A 4 reflects minor gaps.

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 description explains each parameter with clear semantics: doc_id is the target, and category/topic/content are optional new values. Since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description provides complete parameter meaning beyond 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 clearly states 'Update a memory by ID' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_memory and delete_memory by focusing on modification of existing memories.

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 modifying an existing memory but doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives. It provides no comparison with sibling tools like save_memory for creation, making usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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