Update memory

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context: 'Re-embeds only when content changes,' which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradiction detected.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mode details. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 7 parameters with full schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains modes and re-embedding behavior, though it could mention that output is likely a success/failure or updated memory object (covered by output schema).

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances understanding by clarifying mode semantics ('replace = patch fields; append = extend content with revision history') and the automatic collection setting via tags, adding value over the schema alone.

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 action: updating an existing memory by ID. It specifies the resource and differentiates modes (replace vs append), distinguishing it from siblings like remember (create) or forget (delete).

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 explains when to use replace vs append, and implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on updating existing memories. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare directly to alternatives.

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