Correct an inaccurate stored memory by providing its ID and a replacement statement, while retaining the superseded version and evidence for audit.
Correct one recalled memory while preserving its superseded history and evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memory_id | Yes | ||
| replacement_statement | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavioral impact. It usefully discloses that the operation preserves superseded history and evidence, indicating a non-destructive correction. It does not mention return values or failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
A single sentence with no filler: the action is front-loaded and the preservation guarantee is stated compactly. It is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter tool.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and its principal side effect. It is slightly thin on return or error semantics, but not critically incomplete for selecting and invoking the tool 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%, but the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory and the description reinforces the replacement intent. It does not explicitly define memory_id or replacement_statement, nor does it mention constraints such as whether the memory must already exist.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Correct one recalled memory') and adds a distinguishing detail: preserving superseded history and evidence. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like memory_add, memory_delete, and even a plain memory_update.
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 correction intent is clear, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over memory_update or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the word 'Correct' rather than stated as a condition or with named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.