modify_passage

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

Annotations only provide a generic title ('Update Archival Memory'), so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: this is a mutation operation (implied by 'Modify'), it requires specific IDs (agent_id, memory_id), and has a current limitation (text-only updates). However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or whether changes are reversible.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds critical constraints. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information not obvious from the tool name or annotations.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations covering safety/behavior, the description does well by stating the purpose, prerequisite (list_passages), and current limitation. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like permissions or idempotency.

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%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reinforces that 'update_data' is for 'text content' updates only, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or contextual details not already in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Modify a memory'), resource ('in the agent's archival memory store'), and scope ('Currently only supports updating the text content'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_passage' (creation), 'delete_passage' (deletion), and 'list_passages' (listing).

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use list_passages to find memory IDs' (prerequisite) and 'Currently only supports updating the text content' (limitation vs. alternatives like 'update_memory_block' for broader updates). It clearly directs to a specific sibling tool for ID discovery.

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