Update a memory

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds a concrete side effect: 'Updating content reprocesses the memory (status returns to processing until reprocessing finishes).' This provides behavioral context beyond the structured hints, though it does not disclose return values or error behavior.

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 three short sentences: what the tool does, the invocation requirement, and the key behavioral consequence. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, the 'at least one' constraint, and the reprocessing side effect. Minor gaps remain around the return value and what happens if the ID does not exist, but these are not exposed in the schema and do not undermine tool selection.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the cross-field constraint 'Provide at least one of content or project,' which is not expressed in the schema's required list. It also links the content parameter to the reprocessing behavior.

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 opens with 'Replace the content or move to a different project for an existing memory,' specifying the verb and resource scope precisely. This clearly distinguishes update from save (new memory), recall, delete, and project-rename siblings.

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 phrase 'for an existing memory' and 'Provide at least one of content or project' imply that the tool is for modifying an existing memory, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use exclusions are provided. Sibling tools like save_memory and rename_memory_project are not mentioned, leaving usage guidance only implicit.

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