管家记忆-更新

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 only says 'updates a local memory' and does not state whether fields are merged or replaced, whether memory_id must already exist, what side effects occur, or what the response contains.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, the brevity contributes to under-specification, so it is compact but not maximally informative.

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?

Even for a simple mutation tool, the description leaves critical call details unspecified: the expected structure of fields, the role of memory_id, update semantics, and return behavior. Without annotations or an output schema, an agent would likely struggle to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'fields' is a JSON object, which gives minimal type meaning, but it does not explain what keys or values fields should contain, what memory_id refers to, or whether the update is partial.

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 ('更新') and the resource ('一条本地管家记忆'), making the core operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like memory_save or memory_archive, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance about when to use memory_update versus memory_save or other memory-related tools. There are no conditions, prerequisites, exclusions, or examples to help an agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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