Update memory

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds the specific behavior of preserving prior versions, which is consistent with destructiveHint=false. However, it does not disclose the response format, error conditions, or any permission requirements, leaving significant gaps for an agent to navigate.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without padding. It is front-loaded with the action and the key preservation behavior. While terse, it earns its place; the only slight shortfall is that it could have used one additional sentence for parameter hints.

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 tool with six parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify how the id identifies the memory, what the effect of each field is, whether updates are partial or full replacements, or what the tool returns. An agent would struggle to call this correctly.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not compensate—it never explains what 'text', 'tags', 'source', 'expiresAt', or 'namespace' mean in the context of updating a memory. Without any parameter semantics, an agent cannot correctly construct the input beyond guessing.

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 ('Correct an existing memory') and the key distinguishing behavior ('preserving its prior versions in local history'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_memory or supersede_memory, which either remove or replace without preserving history. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that update_memory is for corrections or revisions while supersede_memory might be for replacing with a new version, or that delete_memory is for removal. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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