Update Memory

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint=false annotation (it is a write operation) and does not contradict idempotentHint=true. However, it adds little beyond annotations: it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens to unspecified fields, or the return value. The phrase 'and/or' hints at partial updates but is not explicit.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple three-parameter update tool with annotations, the description gives a basic purpose but lacks important context: it does not state whether the update is additive/partial, describe the output/return behavior, or clarify the owner_id parameter. Given no output schema, more detail would help the agent understand the full behavior.

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 67%: content and memory_id are described, but owner_id is not. The description's reference to 'metadata' may implicitly cover owner_id, but this is vague and does not clarify the exact meaning or expected format. It adds some semantic value but does not fully compensate for the owner_id gap.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('a memory record'), and specifies the scope as 'content and/or metadata'. This distinguishes it from sibling memory tools like add, get, list, and delete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other update tools among the many siblings, though the 'memory record' context makes it clear enough.

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 offers no explicit usage guidance, such as when to use this tool versus alternatives like lyzr_memory_add or lyzr_memory_delete. It neither mentions prerequisites (e.g., existing record) nor exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'update', which is not enough for an agent to decide confidently.

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