Update Memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It communicates exact-match behavior but does not state what happens if no match is found, whether all occurrences are replaced, whether replacing is reversible, or that omitting replace deletes the memory.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the key matching instruction is included without redundancy.

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 tool is a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and several overlapping sibling tools. The description covers the basic action but omits important decision context such as when to prefer this over related tools and how edge cases like missing finds or empty replacements behave.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description's 'exact text' phrasing adds mild emphasis on matching but does not materially extend what the schema already states.

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 identifies the operation as 'Find and replace existing memory' and adds the key requirement to pass exact text. It is distinguishable from delete_memory and save_memory, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named replace_section sibling.

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 is given on when to use update_memory versus save_memory, delete_memory, or replace_section. The only instruction is 'Pass exact text to find,' which is more of a usage detail than a decision rule.

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