memory_update

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

No annotations provided; description only says 'update', implying mutation. It does not disclose whether it replaces or merges fields, authorization requirements, whether it returns the updated object, or any 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?

Single sentence, no fluff. All words contribute to the purpose.

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?

No output schema, 8 parameters with limited schema coverage. Description does not explain return value, error handling, or behavior when updating multiple fields. Incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 38% (only body and title have descriptions). The description lists the fields but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain payload or memory_id semantics, but listing fields provides some guidance.

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 'Update a repo memory's text, status, confidence, kind, or tags by id.' It specifies the verb (update), resource (repo memory), and lists modifiable fields. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like memory_rebind or memory_create, which may also modify memories.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_rebind or memory_show. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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