evolve_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that it 'adds an evolution note' but does not disclose whether it mutates the memory, how the optional new_value is applied, whether memory_id must exist, or what the response/outcome is. This is a significant transparency gap for a write 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 a concise single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action ('Add an evolution note') and includes the purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain whether new_value updates the memory's current value, whether the evolution note is appended to a history log, or how this tool differs from update_memory. Missing these key details makes the context insufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it aligns with evolution_note but does not clarify the role of new_value or the relationship between parameters.

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 action ('Add an evolution note') and the resource (memory), with a stated purpose ('to track changes over time'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_memory and store_memory by emphasizing the note-based evolution tracking, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'to track changes over time' implies when the tool should be used, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like update_memory or store_memory. The usage context is only implicit.

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