update_memory_asset

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: content changes trigger re-vectorization, the original ID is preserved, and deprecated fields are noted. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns without contradiction.

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 three sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers usage context and behavioral notes.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, usage context, and important behavioral details despite having 13 parameters and no output schema. It could be improved by mentioning return value or error cases, but it is adequate for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100% as all 13 parameters have descriptions. The description adds only marginal value for parameters (e.g., warning about source_project/source_path). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 verb '更新' (update) and the resource '共享记忆库中的已有资产' (existing memory asset), and explicitly notes that the original ID is preserved. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_feature, memorize_asset, or delete_memory_asset.

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 explicit context: '适用于修正摘要、正文或标签' (for correcting summary, content, or tags) and warns about cross-repo sharing by forbidding source_project/source_path. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives.

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