memory_update_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavioral trait: 'The embedding is regenerated automatically.' It does not mention whether metadata is merged or replaced, or any side effects, but it provides some insight beyond the schema.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follow with a key usage note. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 3 parameters (one nested), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and one behavioral nuance. It is concise yet sufficient for an update operation, though it could elaborate on metadata merging behavior or return value, but that is not strictly required.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value to parameter semantics, only reinforcing that 'content' is the new content and that the ID comes from search. It does not clarify the behavior of the optional 'metadata' parameter beyond the schema.

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') with a clear resource ('existing memory') and explicitly distinguishes this from creating a new memory by referencing 'existing' and directing the user to use a memory ID from a previous search. This differentiates it from sibling tools like memory_save_memory or memory_delete_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 phrase 'Use the memory ID from a previous search result' provides clear context on when to use this tool, implying it is for updating existing memories rather than creating new ones. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or name alternatives, though the sibling context helps.

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