Update a stored memory by its ID with revised content, tags, or category to keep information accurate.
Update an existing memory by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Memory ID | |
| tags | No | New tags | |
| content | No | New content | |
| category | No | New category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is a mutation of an existing memory, but it does not explain whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared, whether the memory must exist, what error behavior occurs, or what is returned.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, target, and required identifier.
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?
The tool has multiple optional fields and sibling write operations, yet the description omits partial-update semantics, error behavior, and return value details. With no annotations and no output schema, this level of context is insufficient for an agent to call the tool confidently.
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 schema already describes all four parameters (id, tags, content, category) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not additive.
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 names a specific action ('Update'), a resource ('an existing memory'), and the key selector ('by ID'). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool write_memory, so the differentiation is only implicit.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use update_memory versus write_memory, read_memories, search_memories, or recall. The description implies this tool is for modifying an existing memory, but it does not state exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.