mnemonic_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states partial-update behavior and the destructive replacement of tags and triggers, which is critical for a mutating operation. It does not cover potential error conditions or idempotency, but the key traits are well-explained.

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, a key behavioral note, and a compact example. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundant filler or overly verbose explanations.

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 a detailed input schema, the description adequately covers essential semantics like partial updates and replacement behavior. It does not explain return values, which is acceptable since an output schema exists. It lacks mention of prerequisites like existence of the memory, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 already provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with a concrete example showing how to use weight and tags, and clarifies that unspecified fields remain unchanged, which is not obvious from the schema alone. This enrichment pushes it above baseline.

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 function: 'Update an existing memory.' It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (memory), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mnemonic_create, mnemonic_get, and mnemonic_delete. The additional note 'Only specified fields will be updated' further clarifies the scope.

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 by stating 'Update an existing memory,' but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like mnemonic_create or mnemonic_get. It provides no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so usage guidance is 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.