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

The idempotentHint annotation already tells the agent the operation can be repeated safely. The description adds that an edge is created and is typed, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing edges are overwritten, whether relationship counts affect memory_stats, or authorization requirements). With the contradiction-free annotation, a 3 is fair.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action ('Link two memories with a typed relationship') is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds clarifying graph vocabulary. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter creation tool with a full output schema, idempotentHint, and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete enough. The only gap is usage guidance about whether the relation should be created symmetrically or whether duplicate relations are permitted, but the schema and annotation already cover most operational needs.

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?

Parameter help is 100% covered by the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description slightly adds value by framing the parameters as endpoints of a directed edge ('Link two memories'), which clarifies the from/to directionality. It also notes the relation_type is 'typed', reinforcing the schema's examples. No further detail needed.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Link') and resource ('two memories', 'knowledge graph edge'), and is distinct from siblings like get_relationships or delete_relationship. The 'typed relationship' phrasing clarifies that the edge is categorized, not a generic link.

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 implies usage context — creating edges in a knowledge graph between existing memories — but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over store_memory, update_memory, or get_relationships, nor does it mention prerequisites such as both memories existing or hashes being retrievable. It gives some context but no exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with that. It adds value beyond the annotation by disclosing batch semantics, per-item results, and partial success behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, and the additional behavioral details are relevant for an agent deciding on error handling.

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?

Two tight sentences lead with the primary action and scope, then immediately convey important return semantics (per-item results, partial success). 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 single-parameter tool with a 100% documented schema, a destructiveHint annotation, and an output schema already covering return structure, the description provides the remaining essential context: that it is batch and supports partial success. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, with the hashes parameter already documenting the 1-50 count and memory-hash nature. The description adds the notion of 'by hash' and 'batch operation' but does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete'), the resource ('memories'), and the key scoping ('multiple', 'by hash', 'single batch operation'). This also distinguishes it from the sibling delete_memory, which is singular, and from other memory tools. The title reinforces the plural nature.

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 clearly implies this tool is for deleting more than one memory at once and highlights partial success support, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative delete_memory or state when to prefer one over the other, so it stops short of full guidance.

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

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructiveness, but the description adds no behavioral context such as permanence, idempotency, or scope. It is consistent with the annotation and not contradictory, but it contributes little beyond what the annotation already says.

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 only three words, front-loaded, and contains no filler. It is appropriately compact for a one-parameter destructive operation, though its terseness contributes to the missing usage and behavior guidance.

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 operation is simple and the schema, output schema, and destructiveHint annotation carry most of the needed information. However, the description leaves sibling selection (especially 'delete_memories') implicit and does not clarify side effects beyond the annotation.

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%, including the SHA-256/64-hex format, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by hash' merely references the parameter rather than adding meaning like not-found behavior or whether deletion is idempotent.

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 gives a clear verb ('Delete') and selection mechanism ('by hash'), and the tool name/title supplies the resource ('memory'). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'delete_memories' tool.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus 'delete_memories', 'update_memory', or other siblings. It does not state whether it deletes a single memory, require any preconditions, or mention batch deletion alternatives.

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

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate the destructive nature. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: it removes only the relationship, not the underlying memories. It does not disclose idempotency, permanence beyond the annotation, or error behavior, but the annotation lowers the bar.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, and every word earns its place without repeating schema or annotation content.

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 simple 3-parameter destructive tool, the schema plus annotations plus description are nearly sufficient: all inputs are documented, validation is clear, and the destructive hint is present. Missing sibling-routing and usage guidance slightly reduce completeness, but these are partially accounted for under usage guidelines.

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%, with all three parameters (from_hash, to_hash, relation_type) documented including patterns and descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Remove', and clearly identifies the resource: a relationship between two memories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_memory and create_relationship without ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_relationships or delete_memory, and no conditions, preconditions, or exclusions are provided. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and annotations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve memory by hash' only restates the action implied by the name; it does not disclose what happens on a miss, whether the operation is strictly read-only, or whether any errors are expected. The presence of an output schema helps but is not part of the description.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it could include more useful behavioral or usage context without sacrificing 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?

For a one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits usage guidance and behavior on missing hashes, and given the large sibling set, some disambiguation would make the definition 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?

The input schema fully documents the hash parameter with a type, pattern, and description (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Retrieve memory by hash' uses a specific verb and resource, and adds the retrieval key (hash). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling retrieval tools like search_memories or recall.

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 given about when to use this tool versus the many siblings (search_memories, recall, get_relationships). The only implied usage is that you need a hash, but this is not stated as a decision rule or contrasted with alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavior that it returns all linked memories with relationship types, and the phrase 'all' signals exhaustive retrieval. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, and no filler. The second sentence adds return semantics rather than repeating the title.

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 simple read-only tool with a rich output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the core concept. It could add a note about relationship traversal use cases, but nothing essential is missing.

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%: the schema already explains the 'hash' target and the 'direction' enum/default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming the target memory, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get all relationships for a memory') and clarifies what the call returns ('linked memories with relationship types'). This clearly separates it from get_memory (single memory) and create_relationship/delete_relationship (mutations).

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the relationships of a specific memory. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as search_memories or recall, so the agent must infer selection criteria from sibling names.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the specific focus on statistics and health, which is useful context. It does not disclose details about the returned metrics or whether the data is cached/current, but the presence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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 four-word phrase that is immediately scannable and contains no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name or title. It front-loads the entire meaning with maximum economy.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and no nested objects, 'Database statistics and health' is enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The output schema can carry the return-value detail, so no additional description is required.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema explicitly says 'No parameters required', so parameter documentation is unnecessary. This is the zero-parameter baseline case where the description does not need to add parameter meaning.

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 identifies a specific resource (the database) and subject area (statistics and health), which clearly separates it from the memory CRUD and relationship siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'show', so it stops just short of a fully specified purpose.

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 phrase 'statistics and health' implies this is the read-only inspection/status tool, and no sibling covers that function, so the intended use is reasonably clear. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it or when not to use it, leaving the guidance implicit.

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

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it searches memories, traverses relationships, and returns a connected graph cluster. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it. It doesn't detail edge cases like no matching memories or depth limits, but those are partially covered by the schema and output schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core mechanism and result, and the second sentence gives the intended use case. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only annotation, fully described parameters, and presence of an output schema cover most operational concerns. The description still leaves some implicit routing choices—e.g., how it differs from a plain search_memories call—but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 both 'query' and 'depth' are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the general notion of graph traversal, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness.

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 ('Search for memories and traverse relationships') and the resource/output ('connected graph cluster'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like search_memories and get_memory by emphasizing knowledge-graph traversal, so an agent can tell which tool is intended.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this for deeper context retrieval that follows knowledge graph connections.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to route an agent appropriately.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the safe, non-mutating nature of the tool. The description adds only that search is by content and tags, which repeats the query parameter's schema description; it does not disclose behavior like matching semantics, result ordering, or limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It states the action and scope directly, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and a readOnlyHint, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any context about how search_memories relates to recall or when tag-based search is preferred, leaving some ambiguity in a toolset with several similar memory-access operations.

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 parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 identifies the tool as a search operation over memories, specifying the search dimensions: content and tags. It is more specific than a tautology and distinguishes itself from direct retrieval tools like get_memory, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling recall tool.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose search_memories over alternatives such as get_memory or recall. The only usage signal is the implied need to search by content or tags, which is reasonable but not stated as selection criteria.

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

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

The description goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation by disclosing partial success support and per-item results, which are important behavioral traits not captured in structured metadata. However, it does not explain what happens on partial failure or how failures are indicated in the output.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the key behavioral trait (partial success) is stated compactly in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 definition is complete for a batch tool of this complexity: output schema exists, so return values need no description; annotations cover idempotency; and partial success is disclosed. More detail on failure-item identification would elevate it further, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, with the items array and each nested property well-documented. The description adds no new parameter semantics but is not required to, given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Store multiple memories in a single batch operation'), clearly identifying the resource (multiple memories) and the batching behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling store_memory via the 'multiple' and 'batch' framing, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 implies when to use it (when storing multiple memories at once) but does not explicitly state when to use store_memory instead, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria or alternatives. Usage context is inferable but not explicit.

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

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

The description states the core write behavior: storing a new memory. The annotation 'idempotentHint: true' already covers repeat-call safety, but the description does not explain what idempotency means here, such as whether duplicate content is deduplicated, replaced, or ignored. There is no direct contradiction, but behavioral context beyond annotations is minimal.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is efficient and easy to scan, though it is so terse that it misses useful guidance about siblings and behavior.

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 rich schema descriptions and the presence of an output schema, an agent can likely invoke the tool correctly with the required parameters. However, the description alone does not clarify when to choose this over store_memories or how the idempotent behavior manifests, so the overall definition is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already well documented, including tags constraints, importance priority, and memory_type enum. The description adds no semantic value beyond singling out tags, which is already required by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 uses a clear verb ('store') and resource ('memory'), and identifies tags as part of the operation. It is not a tautology because it adds that a new memory is created with tags. However, it does not distinguish this singular tool from its sibling 'store_memories', so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'store_memories' for bulk storage, 'update_memory' for existing memories, or 'recall'/'search_memories' for retrieval. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name and input schema.

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

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

The description discloses a useful behavioral consequence: content changes alter the hash, so a new hash is returned. However, with only idempotentHint in annotations and no destructive/readOnly hints, it does not clarify whether old content is fully replaced, whether the old hash becomes invalid, or what happens on repeated calls.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the primary action and add exactly one consequential detail. There is no redundancy with the schema or annotations, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and an idempotency annotation, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is usage routing among siblings, but the core update behavior and hash side effect are clear enough to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the required and optional parameters are already well documented. The description adds value by explaining the semantic tie between content and hash, clarifying why the tool returns a new hash.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Update memory content.' It also adds the key consequence that a new hash is returned. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling store/get/delete tools, though it does not mention that tags can also be replaced.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus store_memory, delete_memory, or search_memories. The verb 'Update' implies modifying an existing memory, but there are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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