update_memory

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that it updates an existing memory but does not describe side effects, such as whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, whether updates are destructive, or any authorization requirements. The schema notes that tags replace existing, but this is not in 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 sentence that efficiently states the action and lists the fields. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While concise, it could benefit from separating optional fields and required ID for clarity.

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 tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It lacks information about return values, error behavior, and when to use this tool over others. Completeness is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke it.

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 input schema already documents all parameters. The description lists the fields but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description confirms the schema but does not enhance it.

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 it updates an existing memory and lists the specific fields that can be updated (content, tags, district, emotional_valence, intensity, epistemic_status). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_memory, store_memory, and retrieve_memory, which have different purposes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as distill_memory or connect_memories. There is no mention of prerequisites, restrictions, or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate.

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