update_memory

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

With no annotations, the description provides valuable behavioral context: it re-embeds and re-indexes, which is a side effect beyond the basic operation. This aids an agent in understanding consequences, though it could be more comprehensive about error states or idempotency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value: 'Overwrite' is specific, and the side effects are succinctly stated. No redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers the operation and a key side effect. Missing details like return format or prerequisite that memory exists, but output schema exists (though not provided) and context is nearly sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'text' but not 'memory_id'. The parameter types are self-explanatory from the schema.

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 clearly states the tool overwrites an existing memory's text, using a specific verb ('overwrite') and resource ('memory's text'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_memory (creation) and delete_memory (removal) by focusing on update.

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 implies usage for updating an existing memory's text, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to add vs update), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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