memory_update

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

The description discloses that updating text triggers re-embedding, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not discuss side effects of updating importance or category, error conditions, or idempotency. With no annotations, this is a partial disclosure.

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 8-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no superfluous content.

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 description is adequate for a simple update tool but lacks information on return values, error handling, and constraints (e.g., memoryId must exist). Given no output schema and moderate schema coverage, more context would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds value by noting that text triggers re-embedding. However, importance and category lack schema descriptions, and the description does not clarify their semantics or constraints beyond listing them.

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 action (Update) and resource (existing memory) and lists the specific updatable fields (text, importance, or category). It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_store (create) and memory_forget (delete).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., memory must exist), or when not to use it. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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