Update memory

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond that: new content replaces the old content, and the previous version is kept. It does not cover permissions, failure modes, or response details, but the replacement and version-retention behavior is a meaningful addition.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and purpose. The content-format sentence and the replacement/version sentence each add distinct value with no wasted text.

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 seven parameters, 29% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core operation well: when to use it, content format, and replacement/version behavior. However, it leaves several parameters unexplained, which matters given the low schema coverage. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is mainly parameter completeness.

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 29%, so the description must compensate for several undocumented parameters. It explains the content format and size, but says nothing about memoryId, kind, category, confidence, or entityType, and gives little beyond the schema for brain. Most parameter meaning is left to the schema despite low coverage.

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 verb and resource: update an existing Brain memory. It also scopes the action to correcting or changing existing content, which distinguishes it from adding a new memory. However, it does not explicitly name siblings such as add_memory or delete_memory, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It gives a clear usage trigger: when the user asks to correct or change an existing memory. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly point to alternatives like add_memory for new memories or get_memory_versions for history, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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