update_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses auto re-embedding, that an absent record returns NOT_FOUND (i.e. no upsert), that blank content yields INVALID_ARGUMENT with a reason, and the project/global store lookup order. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether other fields are preserved, keeping it below 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the content is fully duplicated in Chinese and English, roughly doubling the length for the same information. Each individual sentence earns its place, yet the bilingual redundancy is a real efficiency cost.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the safety-relevant behavior (error codes, no-upsert, re-embed) and the resolution semantics. Auth/authorization and field-preservation behavior are the remaining gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it covers all four parameters: content (empty/whitespace validation), record_id (lookup by ID), project (sub-store then global lookup order), and client (audit-only, auto-detected from clientInfo). Values are meaningful beyond the bare schema titles.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a memory's content by ID') plus the key side effect ('auto re-embed on change'), which clearly separates it from read_memory, delete_memory, and search_memory. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can pick it correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the ID-based update signals 'edit an existing record', and the project/client resolution rules tell the agent how to target the record. There is no explicit when-to-use vs write_memory alternative and no prerequisite guidance, so it remains minimum viable.

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