Update memo

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond them by clarifying that content replaces the ENTIRE memo (the actual destructive act) and that unspecified fields are left untouched, which is non-obvious for a PATCH-style update. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or whether the operation is reversible beyond archive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation scope, followed by the alternative-tool routing and the partial-update rule. No filler, every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists and there are 7 parameters, but the description covers what the tool mutates, how partial updates behave, and when to prefer a sibling. The gaps are minor (no note on permission requirements or return shape), and annotations carry the destructive/idempotency profile.

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 71% and the schema already documents most fields (content replaces everything, 'none' removed from space, archived is reversible). The description reinforces the partial-update contract and highlights the full-replacement semantics of content, adding meaning to the destructive content parameter. It doesn't add syntax detail for created_at or the visibility enum, which is fine since those are schema-documented.

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?

States a specific verb (change/update) plus the exact resource (memo) and enumerates the mutation surface: visibility, pinned, archived, space, creation time, and full content replacement. It explicitly distinguishes itself from edit_memo_content, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool (edit_memo_content) and the condition that selects it ('For small text changes prefer edit_memo_content so the rest of the memo is not rewritten'). It also sets the partial-update expectation ('Only the fields you pass are changed'), which prevents the most likely misuse.

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