update_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool modifies an existing memory, that memory_id must come from search results, implying a prerequisite. It does not detail side effects like overwriting vs merging, but the behavioral traits are consistent and adequately communicated.

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 concise with two short paragraphs, front-loading the action and including an ACTION GUIDE. However, it could include brief parameter descriptions without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 6 parameters, and despite the presence of an output schema, the description does not explain all parameters sufficiently. Usage guidance is good, but parameter semantics are incomplete, making the tool less complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 should explain parameters. It only provides an example using memory_id and content, but does not describe the meaning or behavior of category, tags, source, or importance. The parameter names offer some self-explanatory value, but for a tool with 6 parameters, more detail is needed.

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 'Modify', the resource 'EXISTING memory', and requires an ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_memory' (create) and 'delete_memory' (delete).

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 ACTION GUIDE explicitly states when to use: 'when an existing fact or preference changes', and provides a concrete example. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear and specific.

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