memory.update

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It correctly discloses that the tool is mutating ('replaces content and/or tags'), but it does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether expiry is cleared if not provided, or if missing fields leave old values untouched). The description is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no fluff, but it could be more structured to list behavioral details. It earns its place.

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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks guidance on partial updates (e.g., providing only 'id' and 'tags' leaves 'content' unchanged) and does not explain the relationship between 'project_id' and 'project_root'. It is minimally complete for a simple 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 100%, so the baseline starts at 3. The description adds that the tool 'replaces content and/or tags', which restates the schema. It does not clarify parameter interactions (e.g., that 'expires_at' can be set to empty string to remove expiry) beyond the schema, so the added value is minimal.

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 resources 'memory entry', explaining it replaces content and/or tags. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memory.store' (which creates) or 'memory.delete', though the intent is clear enough.

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 states 'Use to correct or refine stored knowledge,' which implies when to use it, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that partial updates require providing only the fields to change, nor does it distinguish from 'memory.store' for creation.

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