memex_correct

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it keeps the old record, marks it superseded, and does not delete anything (aligning with destructiveHint=false). It also explains the behavior when id is already superseded (reports replacement unless force=true). The annotations provide no contradiction; the description adds valuable context about side effects and edge cases. However, it does not mention error response details or permission requirements, which are not covered by annotations, but the core behavioral transparency is strong.

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 moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the primary action, then covers behavioral details, prerequisites, edge cases, and a sibling distinction. No filler or redundancy. It is well-structured as a single cohesive paragraph that reads naturally. Slightly longer than necessary but still efficient for the information density.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must convey enough about behavior. It explains the non-destructive nature, the superseding mechanism, handling of already-superseded ids, and the prerequisite for id. It also differentiates from memex_store. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters (only 2 required), the description covers the critical aspects needed to use it correctly. It does not specify the exact response format, but it mentions 'reports the current replacement' which gives a hint. Overall, it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the key parameters: it emphasizes that 'id' must come from a prior result and that unknown ids are rejected (reinforcing but slightly extending the schema), and it clarifies the 'force' parameter by explaining the default behavior (reports replacement instead of writing) which is not fully explicit in the schema description. This adds value beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline.

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 specific action (correcting a wrong/outdated memory) and the mechanism (stores new text superseding an id). It clearly differentiates from the sibling memex_store by explicitly stating 'Do not use this for a brand-new, unrelated fact -- use memex_store instead.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use context (when a memory is wrong or outdated) and a direct exclusion ('Do not use this for a brand-new, unrelated fact') with the alternative named. It also states a prerequisite (id must come from a prior memex_recall or memex_get result, and unknown ids are rejected), which is critical for correct invocation. This is comprehensive guidance for selecting this tool over siblings.

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