revise

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses that only provided fields are changed and omitted fields retain values, and that the full updated memory is returned. This covers the key behavioral traits for a data update operation.

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 very concise: three sentences that front-load the action, then explain partial update behavior, then note use case, then state return value. Every sentence adds value 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?

For a simple update tool with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how it behaves, and what it returns. No additional context is necessary.

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 minimal extra semantics beyond the schema: it mentions 'space-separated search tags' for the tags parameter. Otherwise, it does not elaborate on parameter usage or formats.

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 tool updates specific fields (label, description, why_matters, tags) of an existing live memory, and distinguishes it from creating or deleting memories. It uses the specific verb 'update' and resource 'existing live memory'.

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 explicitly advises using this tool to enrich or correct a memory without archiving and recreating it. It implies the alternative of archiving/re-creating but does not mention other sibling tools like 'revise_all' or 'search' explicitly.

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