update_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It introduces 'optimistic locking' as a key behavior, which is useful for agent reasoning. However, it does not explain what happens on version conflict, whether the operation is idempotent, or any authentication/authorization requirements. The description adds some value beyond the schema but is not comprehensive.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no filler words and is easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing key aspects) without losing conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, optimistic locking, an output schema), the description is too brief. It fails to explain the locking mechanism, what happens on conflict, how to use the output schema, or any other contextual details. The description leaves significant gaps that the agent must infer from parameter names alone.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already documented in the schema. The term 'optimistic locking' relates to the 'expected_version' parameter, but this connection is not elaborated. Therefore, no extra semantic value is provided.

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 indicates the verb 'Update' and the resource 'memory'. It adds a specific behavioral qualifier ('optimistic locking for concurrent agent safety') that distinguishes it from basic update operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'store_memory' (which likely creates a new memory), leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'store_memory', 'recall_memories', or 'memory_admin'. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or conflict scenarios. The optimistic locking mention implies usage in concurrent environments, but without explicit directives, the agent must infer appropriateness.

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