roampal-core

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing memory' implies a mutation operation but provides no information about permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to the memory after update. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for 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 extremely concise with zero wasted words. 'Update an existing memory' is a single, straightforward statement that gets directly to the point. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the structure itself is efficient.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'memory' is in this context, what format the content should take, what happens during the update, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this 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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'memory' but doesn't explain what 'memory_id' represents or what 'content' should contain. With 2 undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic information.

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 'Update an existing memory' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_memory' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish what type of memory is being updated or how this differs from sibling tools like 'add_to_memory_bank' or 'record_response'. The verb 'update' is generic and the resource 'memory' is undefined.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'add_to_memory_bank', 'delete_memory', and 'search_memory', the agent receives no help in selecting this specific update operation.

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