memory_update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive update. The description does not add behavioral context such as whether omitted fields remain unchanged, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or what happens to confidence/importance defaults. It only minimally restates the mutation nature.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple update tool.

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 six parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema reference in the description, the definition is incomplete. It should clarify which fields are optional, how partial updates behave, and any constraints on values (e.g., memory_type options or confidence range), none of which are present.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. It mentions 'fields' but never enumerates or clarifies the six parameters (content, summary, confidence, importance, memory_type, memory_id). With no schema-level descriptions and no compensating text, the agent is left to infer parameter meaning from names alone.

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 uses a clear verb+resource: 'Update fields of an existing memory.' It distinguishes itself from memory_save (create) and memory_get (read). However, it is generic as to which fields may be updated, so the purpose is clear but not fully specific.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as memory_save or memory_delete, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this should be used only for modifying an existing memory.

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