marrow_update_memory

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the update replaces the entire memory or merges fields, what side effects occur, whether authentication or specific permissions are required, or how the audit fields (actor, source, note) are used. The agent is left without critical information about the mutation's semantics.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core action and target efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool is a mutation with no annotations or output schema, and the description does not explain update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), validation rules, or effects on existing metadata. While the schema documents parameters, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral transparency leaves the agent underinformed for a tool with 6 parameters and one required field.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a slight categorization by mentioning 'text, tags, or metadata', but it does not clarify the ambiguous term 'metadata' (which could encompass note, actor, or source) nor does it provide additional meaning beyond the minimal schema descriptions. Therefore, the description adds only marginal value to parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('memory'), and lists the updatable attributes ('text, tags, or metadata'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, delete, or supersede memories, so an agent can easily identify its primary function.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like marrow_mark_outdated or marrow_supersede_memory, which might also modify memory state. The intended usage must be inferred solely from the tool name and brief description, leaving the agent without well-defined selection criteria.

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