Update an existing memory's body while retaining the previous version in memory_history with the reason, so every change keeps a full provenance trail.
Update an existing memory. Old body is preserved in memory_history with the supplied reason — every record keeps a full birth/expiration/death trail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| kind | No | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| agent | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| reason | Yes | Why this update was made. | |
| topics | No | ||
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses meaningful side effects beyond simple mutation: old body preservation, the role of the supplied reason, and a full birth/expiration/death trail. Since no annotations are present, this behavioral context is especially valuable, though permissions, reversibility, and other side effects remain unaddressed.
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?
Two sentences deliver the core purpose and the most important behavioral side effect without wasted words. The content is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.
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?
With nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 11% parameter documentation, this description is too thin to fully guide an agent. It captures the central update-and-preserve behavior, but omits return behavior, prerequisites, optional-field semantics, and failure conditions.
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 11%, so the description must compensate, but it only lightly covers 'body' and 'reason' while leaving slug and all optional fields unexplained. The identification role of slug is implicit at best, and fields like kind, tags, agent, title, topics, and project receive no semantic elaboration.
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 action ('Update an existing memory') with a clear resource, and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail: the old body is preserved in memory_history. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the word 'existing' differentiates it from mem_write.
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 phrase 'existing memory' implies the tool is for updating rather than creating, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against siblings like mem_write, mem_learn, or mem_reinforce. An agent is left to infer selection criteria from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.