update_or_move_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context, such as 'If a name is given and no bucket exists with that name, one is created automatically,' and explains the single vs bulk operational modes. However, it omits details about side effects (e.g., what happens to the previous bucket/text) or whether the operation is reversible, which would be valuable for a mutating 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It opens with a clear one-sentence summary, then provides a usage directive, followed by concise mode-specific instructions. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 (two modes, five optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential operational context: when to use it, how to specify buckets by ID or name, and the auto-creation side-effect. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that memoryId or memoryIds is effectively required, and by mentioning the max 100 limit for bulk moves (though it appears in the schema). Overall, it is quite complete.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the description adds significant semantic value beyond the schema. It explains the relationship between parameters: 'Single memory: provide memoryId with optional text and/or bucketId/bucketName. Bulk move: provide memoryIds array with bucketId or bucketName.' This clarifies the valid combinations and mutual exclusivity, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 tool's function: 'Edit a single memory's text or bucket, or move multiple memories to a different bucket.' This uses specific verbs (edit, move) and resources (memories, bucket), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like store_memory or create_bucket.

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 includes an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section and clearly differentiates single-memory vs bulk-move scenarios. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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