Update / trim a memory

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

Annotations provide no safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by explaining mutation behavior: partial updates and append mode. It does not contradict annotations and is consistent with a write operation.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loads the purpose, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers expected behavior, return value, and append mode. It omits mention of required id but the schema covers that. Overall adequate.

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%, but the description adds beyond the schema by explaining the effect of omitting fields and the append parameter. The inline argument list also aids clarity.

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 tool's purpose: 'Edit a memory — the human curation moment. Trim a stale summary, refine key points, retitle, or retag.' This is a specific verb-resource combination and differentiates from siblings like mindmap_forget (delete) and mindmap_get (read).

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 provides usage context such as 'Any omitted field is left unchanged' and 'Set append=true to append instead of replacing.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative siblings for similar tasks.

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