memory_update

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

The description adds useful context about moving projects via updates.project, but does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, or the destructive overwrite potential hinted by annotations. It neither contradicts the destructiveHint annotation nor meaningfully elaborates on it.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the primary verb and object. Every sentence carries some information, though 'selected original scope' is slightly unclear and could be simplified. It avoids redundancy and unnecessary detail.

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 complex nested updates object and lack of an output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain partial update semantics, the relationship between top-level project and updates.project, namespace/project scoping, or the destructive nature of overwriting existing fields. The single helpful note about project moves is not enough for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only explains updates.project. It leaves id, namespace, top-level project, and most fields inside updates (tags, type, title, source, content, metadata, expires_at, importance) to be inferred from names and schema constraints. This is insufficient for a nested update object.

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?

Clearly states the action (update), the resource (memory), and includes a useful note about moving projects via updates.project. The phrase 'selected original scope' is slightly awkward but does not obscure the core purpose. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like memory_add and memory_delete.

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?

Provides minimal guidance on how to supply changes and mentions project moves, but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_add, memory_merge, memory_enrich, or entity_update. There is no mention of when updating is appropriate or what preconditions should exist.

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