hicortex_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the embedding is re-computed when content changes, a valuable side-effect. However, it does not mention whether the update is partial, what happens if the id does not exist, or any auth requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is only partially transparent.

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?

Three short sentences: the action, the usage context, and a behavioral side-effect. Each sentence earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded. No filler or 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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and a key behavioral effect. With full schema coverage for parameters and no output schema requirement, this is adequate. It could additionally mention error behavior or non-content changes, but the essentials are present.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the behavioral note that content changes trigger embedding re-computation. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Update an existing memory,' a specific verb + resource that clearly identifies the operation. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like ingest (create), delete, and search by emphasizing 'existing memory' and 'fix incorrect information.'

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?

'Use after searching to fix incorrect information' provides clear contextual guidance on when to invoke this tool. It implies that search first, then update, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions such as 'use ingest for new memories.' This is clear but not fully explicit.

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