memory_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that content is preserved, enumerates mutable fields, and explains that expected_revision prevents overwriting a concurrent update. It does not cover return values, error behavior, or permissions, but the core mutation semantics are transparent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior, followed by supported fields, the sibling alternative, and the concurrency note. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 3-parameter update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, allowed patch fields, the key alternative, and the expected_revision parameter. It omits error handling and return behavior, but an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly in typical cases.

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%, so the description compensates by naming the supported patch fields and giving expected_revision its concurrency-protection meaning. memory_id is self-explanatory from its name, though patch value types are not specified; overall the essential parameter semantics are provided beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update mutable memory fields without changing its content.' The explicit boundary between updating fields and content, plus the list of supported fields, makes the purpose clear and distinguishes it from memory_supersede and other siblings.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to 'Use memory_supersede when the memory content itself needs to change,' providing a clear when-not-to-use condition. The description also implies when memory_update is appropriate: when only context, confidence, provenance, or metadata need updating.

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