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 discloses key mutation semantics: creates a new version, closes the old one via valid_until/superseded_by, omitted fields carry over, and a 409 error if updating a non-current version. It does not mention auth requirements (nonce/signature from memory_prepare) or rate limits, but those are covered by the schema.

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 sentences with zero waste. The versioning differentiator is front-loaded, followed by the carry-over rule and error condition, making the key behavior immediately clear.

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?

For a versioned mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers versioning, partial updates, and error conditions well. It omits any mention of the return value (e.g., the new version ID) and does not reference the memory_prepare dependency, though the schema documents the nonce parameter.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by stating that omitted fields carry over, clarifying partial-update behavior for content, tags, metadata, and source.

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 states a specific verb (update) and resource (memory), and immediately clarifies the non-overwriting versioning behavior, distinguishing it from memory_store (which creates new memories) and memory_delete.

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 implies usage by explaining versioning and the constraint that only the current version can be updated (409 otherwise). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like memory_store or memory_delete, nor does it state when-not-to-use conditions beyond the current-version restriction.

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