update_memory

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

The description adds a valuable non-obvious behavior: 'Re-embeds automatically if content changes.' It also clarifies that tags 'replace existing' rather than merge. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure and still omits important details such as error handling, what happens when fields are omitted or null, and whether updates are atomic.

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 appropriately sized: a one-line summary front-loads the key behavioral note about re-embedding, followed by a clean, structured Args list. Each line is informative and earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. Required and optional parameters are covered. However, a critical gap remains: the semantics of passing null versus omitting fields (e.g., does null clear tags or mean 'no change'?) is unclear, which is essential for a correct update call. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining all five parameters in the Args block. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, such as 'triggers re-embedding if changed' and 'replaces existing.' This is sufficient for basic parameter understanding, though it could be richer about null handling.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing memory.' It clearly names the action and target. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling save_memory, which could serve as the creation counterpart; the distinction is implied by 'existing' but not stated.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_memory or delete_memory. The phrase 'existing memory' implies it is for modifying already-saved memories, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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