update_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and it explicitly flags 'Side effect: modifies the memory on the server' and states the return payload. It stops short of discussing reversibility, permissions, or failure behavior, so it is not a 5, but the side-effect disclosure is meaningful.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core operation, and every section—summary, side effect, args, returns—earns its place. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema types.

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?

For a simple 4-parameter update with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, side effects, all argument meanings, and the response shape. It does not explicitly explain that only supplied optional fields are updated or how the operations combine in one call, but these are minor gaps given the schema's optional defaults.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, every parameter gets a plain-language semantic explanation: is_saved gets true/false behavior, memory_at is described as the new ISO date to display, and seen_at is tied to the user viewing action. This is exactly the meaning the raw schema, with only types and defaults, cannot convey.

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 opens with a specific operation on a specific resource and then enumerates three concrete behaviors: saving the memory, moving its date, and marking it seen. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling memory tools such as create_memory, list_memories, and delete_memory.

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 use case is implied by 'Update a memory' and the listed operations, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of create_memory or delete_memory. An agent must infer that modifying an existing memory is this tool's job.

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