memo_update

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the replace_old string must occur exactly once, that unchanged text remains byte-identical, and that all edits are versioned. The destructiveHint annotation already indicates mutation, but the description provides concrete specifics.

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 concise at three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. It efficiently packs behavioral constraints and versioning information. Could be slightly improved with bullet points for readability, but overall effective.

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?

While the editing semantics are well explained, the description does not cover metadata fields (tags, type, title) or return value behavior. Given the tool has 8 parameters and an output schema exists, additional details on response format or side effects would improve completeness.

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 description explains the purpose of key parameters (content, replace_old+replace_new, append) and their constraints. However, it omits explanations for id, tags, type, and title. With 0% schema coverage, the description should cover more of the 8 parameters.

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 tool patches fields on a memory, and enumerates three distinct editing modes: content replacement, surgical find-replace, and append. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memo_save and memo_delete by specifying it is for partial updates.

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 explains how each editing mode works but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus other memo mutation tools such as memo_save or memo_save_text. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it.

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