update_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool replaces memory text in place, implying a mutation. However, it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to the old memory text, or if there are any side effects (e.g., updating timestamps). Given the lack of annotations, this is a minor gap, but the core behavior is clear enough to score a 3.

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 sentence with two distinct clauses, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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 low complexity (2 required params, no nested objects, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. The only missing piece is a brief note on return behavior (e.g., 'returns the updated memory object'), which the output schema might cover, but since the description doesn't reference it, it's a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'text' is the new content and 'memory_id' identifies which memory to update, which is not explicitly stated in the schema. However, it does not provide format details (e.g., allowed characters, length limits) or explain the behavior of required fields beyond what can be inferred. The output schema exists but is not referenced, which is a minor omission.

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 uses a specific verb ('replace') and resource ('memory text'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'add_memory' and 'delete_memory' by stating 'prefer this over delete+add when a fact changed.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and sets it apart from alternative tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (when a fact changed) and when not to ('over delete+add'), directly comparing with sibling tools. This provides clear decision-making guidance with no ambiguity.

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