edit_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'edit' and does not clarify whether fields are updated selectively, whether null values clear fields, or what happens if the node ID does not exist. For a mutation tool, this leaves important edge-case behavior undocumented.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the operation and specifies the resource and fields. Every word is useful; there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple mutation with an output schema, the core operation and input parameters are adequately described. Still, with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves usage guidance and behavioral edge cases implicit rather than explicit.

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 maps id to 'node ID' and names content, importance, and category as the editable fields, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain value semantics such as importance range, category format, or whether content replaces the previous value.

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 states a specific operation — edit an existing memory — and enumerates the mutable fields (content, importance, category) plus the locator (node ID). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as save_memory, delete_memory, and search_memory.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you already have a memory's node ID and want to modify its fields. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name save_memory as the alternative for creating a new memory.

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