Modify an existing memo by updating its content, visibility, state, or pinned status using the memo ID.
Update an existing memo
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | New state setting | |
| memoId | Yes | The memo ID to update | |
| pinned | No | New pinned state | |
| content | No | New content for the memo | |
| visibility | No | New visibility setting |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying 'update' only implies mutation; it does not explain whether fields are replaced partially or entirely, whether the memo must exist, or what the response contains.
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 with no filler, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and no annotations, so the brevity is not fully appropriate.
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 mutation tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks sufficient context about invocation behavior and field semantics. An agent would need to infer too much about how to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself documents each parameter adequately.
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?
States a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing memo'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_memo, get_memo, and delete_memo. The description is simple but unambiguous, though it adds little beyond the tool name.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_memo is for new memos or that get_memo/list_memos might be needed before updating.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.