update_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. 'Update' implies mutation, but it does not explain whether the update is a full replacement or partial merge, what happens to existing metadata, or what the return value is. The schema describes metadata as 'merge', but the description itself adds no behavioral context. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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, concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 tool's mutation nature, the presence of a nested metadata object, and the lack of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention return values, error handling, the effect on existing fields, or how metadata merging works. While the schema covers parameter format, the overall context for using this tool safely and effectively is incomplete.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase 'existing', which hints at the need for a valid memory_id but not explicitly. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('update') and resource ('existing memory entry'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_memory or store_memory. However, it does not differentiate from other modifying tools like evolve_memory or link_memory_to_project, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is just a statement of function with no mention of prerequisites, preferred use cases, or exclusions. This is a complete absence of usage direction.

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