glm_5_update_repository_memory

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

The description adds a behavioral constraint: 'Confirmed facts require explicit provenance; inference must remain marked accordingly.' This provides useful context about data integrity, but lacks details on mutations, idempotency, or authentication needs. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially meets 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 two sentences with no redundant words. It conveys essential behavioral nuance without waste, earning maximum conciseness.

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 complexity (9 parameters, multiple enums, no output schema), the description is too brief. It omits crucial details like the supported actions, status semantics, category purposes, and return behavior, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 and 9 parameters, the description must compensate but does not. It mentions provenance and inference marking, which loosely relate to the 'provenance' and 'status' parameters, but fails to explain the 'action', 'title', 'content', 'category', 'memoryId', 'confidence', and 'evidenceIds' meanings.

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 'Create or update repository memory entries', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'glm_5_inspect_repository_memory' (read-only), but does not mention the 'get' and 'list' actions also available in the input schema, slightly reducing clarity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inspect_repository_memory', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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