update_memory

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

The annotations already indicate readOnly=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: cache invalidation, mutation of the memory record, failure when the memory_id is missing, and the returned updated Memory object. This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent a clearer picture of the side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but there is slight redundancy: 'Invalidates search cache' appears both as a standalone sentence and again in the side-effects sentence. This is minor and does not detract much from the overall clarity.

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 4-parameter schema, the presence of nested objects, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers everything essential: what it modifies, when to use it, failure behavior, side effects, and the return value. The tool can be invoked correctly with just this description plus the schema.

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%, with each parameter already well-documented in the schema (e.g., metadata merge semantics, user namespace default, failure on missing id). The description does not need to add much parameter detail, though it could have reinforced the merge/null semantics in prose.

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 a specific action ('Modify an existing memory's content or metadata') and identifies its resource. It also distinguishes itself from add_memory, which is a key sibling tool, by explicitly saying to prefer add_memory for new content.

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 gives concrete guidance on when to use this tool ('for corrections or adding context to existing memories') and when not to ('Prefer add_memory for new content'). It also warns that the operation fails if memory_id is not found, which helps the agent decide whether this is the right tool.

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