memo_update

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so description adds value by noting versioning (memo_version_rollback), exact-match requirement for replace_old, and byte-identical preservation. This clarifies behavioral traits beyond 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?

Single paragraph packs essential information, front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list), but no wasted words and all key points are covered efficiently.

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 output schema exists, description covers input semantics thoroughly, including constraints on replace_old occurrence and versioning. No critical missing information, though it could mention return behavior or error 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context: tags are lower-cased/deduplicated, type must be valid, mutual exclusivity between content/replace/append. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the 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?

Description clearly states it patches fields on a memory, lists three distinct update modes (content replacement, surgical edit, append), and mentions versioning. This provides a specific verb-resource-action scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like memo_save or memo_get.

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?

Description explains when to use each parameter (content for full replacement, replace_old+replace_new for exact edits, append for adding a paragraph) and notes mutual exclusivity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide conditions for when not to use this tool.

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