cortex_update_scratchpad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Updates' without explaining whether this is a partial update, a full replacement, whether the session must already exist, or what side effects occur.

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 brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no annotation context. It is concise without waste, yet the brevity comes at the cost of necessary guidance.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the required session_id, the meaning of the optional fields, or the update semantics. With no annotations and zero schema coverage, the tool is incompletely described for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by mentioning session_id, notes, active_goal, or current_hypothesis. The agent gets no semantic help beyond raw parameter names, which is inadequate for correctly populating the call.

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 a clear action ('Updates') and a specific resource ('Tier 1 transient working memory scratchpad'), which is enough to distinguish this tool from the sibling list. It lacks explicit differentiation language, but the verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cortex_record_event or cortex_query_memory. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when updating the scratchpad is appropriate.

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