update_memory

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

Despite no annotations, description discloses atomicity, preservation of memory_id, and referential integrity. It mentions caveat-layer constraints. Missing details on permissions or error behaviors, but adequate 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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence states core purpose and key benefit. Second sentence provides use cases and a constraint. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and key behavioral traits (atomicity, referential integrity, caveat-layer limitation). Without output schema, return value is unmentioned, but overall completeness is high given the tool's complexity.

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%, but description adds value beyond schema: 'aliases accepted' for layer and 'Set to 0.9 or higher to pin' for importance. This enhances understanding beyond parameter names and types.

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?

Clearly states it atomically edits an existing memory in-place, specifying what actions it performs (update content, layer, importance). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the forget+remember alternative by highlighting preservation of memory_id and referential integrity.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: for correcting facts, updating deadlines, refining caveats, re-scoring importance. It also states a limitation for caveat-layer memories regarding protected flags, implying when not to fully update.

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