revise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals important behaviors: never creates, fails with memory_not_found, supports expected_version for concurrency (version_conflict). It does not mention auth or reversibility, but for a memory tool these are less critical. Slightly incomplete but strong.

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?

Four sentences, each adding substantive value: purpose, alternative differentiation, failure mode, concurrency behavior. No filler or repetition, well 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?

Given 7 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It covers core use cases and error scenarios, but omits guidance on the optional parameters and does not describe the response shape (though an output schema exists). It is minimally adequate but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains `expected_version` and implies `key` must exist, but does not clarify the meaning or usage of `value`, `reason`, `strategy`, `importance`, or `idempotency_key`. This leaves most parameters under-specified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Deliberately replace an existing memory.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating it is for corrections/superseding rather than creating, which aligns with the sibling context.

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?

Explicitly says to use this instead of `commit_mem` when correcting or superseding existing knowledge, and notes that it never creates (fails with memory_not_found). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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