correct

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key non-obvious behavior: 'Old version is preserved but weakened — never lost,' which is critical for understanding side effects. It also notes that 'omit keys to keep the same search terms,' adding practical behavior detail, though it doesn't cover every edge case.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, and behavioral notes. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, key behavior, and some param semantics. Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values. The only notable gap is the 'key_types' parameter, but overall it provides enough context for effective tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds meaning for some parameters: it explains 'keys' ('Omit keys to keep the same search terms') and 'related_to' ('links the updated memory to other memory IDs'). 'memory_id' and 'content' are implicit from the tool's purpose, but 'key_types' is left completely unexplained, leaving a coverage gap.

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The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Update outdated information,' clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'remember' (for new info) and 'forget' (for deletion) by focusing on corrections. Examples like 'moved cities, changed job' further clarify its scope.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use when user corrects you or info changes,' providing clear context for invocation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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