memory_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and updatable fields, omitting details such as atomicity, return value, error behavior (e.g., missing memory_id), authorization requirements, or side effects.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure and omits important information, making it less effective than a slightly longer, more organized description.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the payload parameter, constraints, or behavior. The sibling tool list provides context but the description does not leverage it.

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?

With 29% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It lists parameter names (text, status, etc.) but does not explain their meaning, valid values, or relationships. For example, 'text' is labeled as 'body' in the schema, causing potential confusion.

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), the resource (repo memory), and the updatable fields (text, status, confidence, kind, tags). It specifies identification by ID. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like memory_create and memory_show, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other update-like siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or suggest alternative tools for different scenarios.

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