update_memory

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Update an existing memory' without indicating whether it merges fields or replaces content, what happens if the ID does not exist, or any permission requirements. This is minimal disclosure even for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, though the brevity borders on under-specification, but structure and clarity of phrasing are good.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error behavior, default update semantics (e.g., merge vs. replace), and any side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 only 20% (only 'id' has a description), and the tool description does not mention any parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving tags, title, content, and memory_type undefined.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing memory.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_memory, delete_memory, and get_memory by explicitly focusing on updating an existing entity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing memory ID, nor does it differentiate from create_memory or clarify partial vs. full updates.

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