update_memo

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully discloses behavior: idempotent for same input, only specified fields change, errors if id does not exist. This provides adequate transparency for an update operation.

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 two sentences plus an example, efficiently conveying purpose and key details. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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's simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers return behavior, side effects, and parameter semantics comprehensively. No gaps remain.

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%, and the description adds crucial context like 'tags array replaces existing tags entirely' and an example. This adds significant meaning 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?

The description clearly specifies the verb 'update' and the resource 'memo', listing the updatable fields. It distinguishes from siblings like create_memo, get_memo, and delete_memo.

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 that only provided fields are modified and that tags replace the entire set. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context from sibling tools is sufficient.

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