memory_update_status

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: true, which are consistent with the description. However, the description does not elaborate on side effects, such as whether setting 'deleted' actually removes the memory or what 'destructive' entails.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core function.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not cover return values. It also lacks information about valid status transitions or prerequisites (e.g., memory must exist). Given the tool's complexity (3 required params, enum), more context is needed for correct usage.

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?

The schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions the 'status' parameter implicitly by listing example values. It does not explain 'projectId' or 'memoryId', leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names.

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 (move a memory) and the resource (lifecycle status), with examples of statuses. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like memory_candidate_accept or memory_candidate_reject, which also change memory status.

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 siblings. For instance, it does not explain that this tool can set any status, while others are specialized for accept/reject actions.

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