Update Memory

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.