revise_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: transactional rollback and partial update semantics. It does not mention auth needs or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are sufficiently covered.

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 pack all essential information: action, resource, transactional behavior, and update semantics. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb.

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?

The description covers the operation's transactional and update behavior well but lacks any mention of return values or error handling, which is notable given the absence of an output schema. For a batch operation, this gap lowers completeness.

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 100%, and the description adds value by clarifying that 'only the fields you provide are changed', which directly explains the semantics of the optional fields in each update object, going beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('multiple existing memories') and emphasizes the transactional nature ('in a single transaction'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'revise' (likely single update).

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 states that all updates are atomic ('All updates succeed or all are rolled back') and that omitted fields retain their current values, guiding the agent on how to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use advice or direct comparison to alternatives like 'revise'.

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