memory_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It merely states 'update', implying mutation, but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, return values, authorization requirements, or side effects. The minimal listing of fields does not address behavioral expectations.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. However, given the tool has 6 parameters, it could benefit from a bit more structure, such as mentioning that updates are partial or enumerating permissible values.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not specify update semantics (e.g., partial vs full), return value, or differentiate from related memory tools. Critical information for safe and correct usage is missing.

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 low (17%), and the description uses 'text' instead of the schema parameter name 'body', which could cause confusion. The description does not explain the enum values for kind, status, and confidence, nor does it clarify the purpose of tags. It adds minimal value beyond listing the parameter names.

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) and lists the updatable fields (text, status, confidence, kind, tags) and specifies identification by id. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like memory_create or memory_mark_obsolete, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool modifies existing memories, while memory_create creates new ones, or that memory_mark_obsolete handles deprecation. Agents must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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