MemOS

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the tool is a 'FIRE AND FORGET' operation with a strict retry policy (no checking, retrying, or sleeping), it handles deletion without IDs, and it forbids certain agent behaviors (e.g., constructing 'Change X to Y' requests). These details go beyond basic function and guide agent interaction effectively.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Trigger, Purpose, STRICT RULES, Parameters) and uses bullet points for readability. While comprehensive, it is slightly verbose due to repetitive emphasis (e.g., multiple 'FORBIDDEN' clauses). Every sentence serves a purpose, but some redundancy could be trimmed for optimal conciseness.

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 complexity (handles modification and deletion without IDs), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage rules, behavioral constraints, parameter guidelines, and sibling differentiation. The detailed retry policy and content rules address potential agent misunderstandings, making it sufficient for safe and effective use.

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 minimal value: it reiterates that feedback_content should contain 'only the user's intent' and forbids verbose narratives, which slightly clarifies the schema's 'clear, concise' description. However, it doesn't provide significant additional meaning for other parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Modify/Delete existing memories based on natural language feedback.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying usage when 'NO ID is provided' (unlike delete_memory which likely requires IDs) and for modification/update (unlike add_message which creates new memories). The 'Trigger' section reinforces this with specific scenarios.

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 provides explicit, structured guidelines: STRICT RULE 1 defines when to use (modify/update/delete without IDs) and when not to use (implied: use delete_memory with IDs, add_message for additions). It names alternatives (delete_memory, add_message) in the retry policy and sibling context. The rules clearly demarcate this tool's scope from other tools.

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