workers_memory_edit

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 only states 'Edit a memory entry' without disclosing whether this is a full replacement or partial update, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response contains. The mutation nature is implied but lacks detail.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core action and identifier. Every word is necessary, and it is appropriately sized for a straightforward edit operation.

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?

With 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not shown, the description is too brief. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, and context relative to sibling tools. For the complexity of the tool, more complete information is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'by message_id' and does not explain the role of 'content' (required) or optional parameters 'topic' and 'group_id'. The agent cannot infer what values are valid or how these parameters affect the memory entry, making parameter usage ambiguous.

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 'Edit a memory entry by message_id' clearly states the action (edit) and resource (memory entry), with a specific identifier (message_id). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like add, delete, get, and create_topic by uniquely specifying 'edit' and the identification method.

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 (e.g., workers_memory_add, workers_memory_delete). No prerequisites are mentioned, nor any context about when editing is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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