update_memory_abstract

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the write operation and maintains evolving summary, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or rollback behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded action and a bullet-point workflow. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's role in the workflow. However, it lacks parameter-level detail (e.g., what format abstract should be in). Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly within the described workflow.

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 description must compensate. It does not directly explain parameters beyond implying 'abstract' is the updated summary and 'last_processed_timestamp' tracks progress. No format or constraints mentioned.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Save' and resource 'memory abstract', and differentiates from siblings by specifying it's for saving the updated abstract after processing, not for retrieving or saving individual 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?

Provides a clear 4-step workflow that explicitly states when to use this tool (after processing) and implies not to use it as a standalone operation. References sibling tools (get_recent_memories, recall_memory_abstract) as preceding steps.

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