memory_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the key non-obvious trait: text changes on preferences/entities create a superseding version (history preserved), while metadata-only changes update in-place. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to predict side effects.

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 tight sentences with the core semantics (versioning vs in-place) front-loaded immediately after the purpose. Zero waste.

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?

Complete enough for a 4-param mutation tool with no output schema: purpose, required param, and the versioning side effect are covered. Missing only explicit when-to-use routing against siblings like memory_merge.

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 100% and the schema already documents all four params (text triggers re-embedding, memoryId accepts UUID/prefix, importance 0-1, category enum). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Update an existing memory') and distinguishes behavior by category type. An agent can tell it apart from memory_store (create) and memory_merge without opening schemas.

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?

Implies usage by describing what updating does in two cases, but never states when to use this vs memory_store or memory_merge, nor any prerequisites. Context is implied rather than explicit.

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