Update a stored memory's content, importance, or archived status by memory ID to keep agent memory accurate and organized.
Update memory content, importance, or archived state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| memory_id | Yes | ||
| is_archived | No | ||
| importance_score | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that content, importance, or archived state can be updated, but does not disclose whether this is a partial update, how nulls are handled, whether archiving is reversible, or what side effects occur. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It loses a point because the word 'or' can misleadingly imply only one field can be updated at a time, whereas the schema allows multiple optional fields together.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and abbreviated parameter documentation, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It omits update semantics, valid values, and the distinction from add/delete, so an agent has insufficient context for confident use.
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%, so the description needed to explain the parameters. It broadly names 'content', 'importance', and 'archived state', but does not clarify the importance_score scale, default/null behavior, or the requirement that memory_id identifies an existing memory. The description adds little beyond the property names already visible in the schema.
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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('memory'), and the exact updatable aspects ('content, importance, or archived state'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memoryos_add_memory and memoryos_delete_memory without requiring schema inspection.
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 about when to use this tool versus memoryos_add_memory, memoryos_delete_memory, or memoryos_get_memory. The word 'update' implies existing memories, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.