memory_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a mutation but does not disclose behavior for missing memory_id, partial vs full update, or side effects. The optional fields in schema suggest partial update, but description omits this.

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?

Single sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Output schema exists but is not shown; still, description needn't explain return values. However, with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to clarify partial update behavior, error handling, or required format of fields.

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 description must compensate. It lists the field names (content, tags, priority) but adds no extra meaning about format, constraints, or relationships. The schema provides basic type info, but description adds no semantic value.

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 (update), resource (existing memory), and fields (content, tags, priority). It distinguishes from siblings like memory_store (create) and memory_delete (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 for modifying existing memories but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., requires existing memory_id) or exclusions.

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