update_memory

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that content is auto-re-embedded on change, and it documents the main error responses (NOT_FOUND, FORBIDDEN, INVALID_ARGUMENT) and the optional client defaulting from clientInfo. Some detail around ownership determination and success return is missing, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes important error behavior. However, it duplicates the same content in Chinese and English, which adds length without adding new information; the English section is mostly a redundant translation.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does not specify what a successful response looks like, and the project parameter remains ambiguous. It covers primary errors and behavior well, but for a mutation tool with no structured annotations or output schema, a bit more detail would be needed for full completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for the client parameter by explaining it is optional and auto-detected from clientInfo, and content/record_id are reasonably inferable from the main action. However, the project parameter is essentially unexplained beyond the ownership error mention.

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 updates a memory's content by ID, which is a specific verb+resource action. It inherently distinguishes itself from siblings like write_memory, read_memory, and delete_memory by referencing an existing record via ID.

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 update-by-ID behavior implies when to use it, and the error conditions provide some context for expected failures. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over write_memory or other alternatives, so usage guidance is only implied.

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