correct

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It reveals that old version is preserved but weakened, never lost, and that omitting keys keeps same search terms. Covers key behaviors but could mention side effects or limitations.

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?

Four sentences, purpose first. No redundancy. Could be more structured but overall efficient. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema; description lacks return value info. With 6 parameters, covers 4 but misses 'source' and 'key_types'. Behavioral context is good but incomplete for a complex 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 coverage is 0%; description adds meaning for some parameters: 'content' (updated info), 'memory_id' (required), 'keys' (search terms), 'related_to' (links to other memories). But 'source' and 'key_types' are not explained, leaving gaps.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates outdated information, with examples like 'moved cities, changed job'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remember' (create new) and 'forget' (delete) by emphasizing preservation and weakening of old version.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when user corrects you or info changes', providing typical scenarios. Missing explicit when-not-to-use but the context is clear. Does not name alternative tools but context implies alternatives are 'remember' or 'forget'.

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