update_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 'Overwrite' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., if memory_id doesn't exist), or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema description coverage, and no complex nested objects, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks critical behavioral context like safety warnings or error handling, leaving gaps in 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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (memory_id as 'Exact memory_id to overwrite' and text as 'Replacement text for the memory'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Overwrite') and resource ('an existing memory's text'), distinguishing it from siblings like add_memory (create), delete_memory (remove), get_memory (read), and search_memories (query). It precisely communicates a mutation operation on a specific memory's content.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the memory must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new memories), or comparisons to siblings like add_memory for creation or get_memory for reading. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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