update_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose destructive overwrite semantics ('Replaces body/tags/related_files'), which tells the agent that existing values are lost rather than merged. It says nothing about permissions, whether partial updates are atomic, what happens when conflicting fields are supplied, or what the response contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the field groupings. No filler, though the replace/set split is compressed into a single sentence rather than structured as two clear modes.

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?

A 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than two sentences. The scope/project_id disambiguation logic, the constraint that reviewed applies only to semantic memories, and the interaction between simultaneous content and metadata updates are all left to the schema or unstated.

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 explains every parameter, including 'Replace all tags' and the priority scale. The description's 'Replaces ... or sets ...' phrasing adds only a light framing of replace-versus-set semantics on top of that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (memory), and enumerates the two modes of change: replacing body/tags/related_files versus setting reviewed/priority/archived. It does not acknowledge that siblings set_memory_priority and archive_memory cover a subset of the same ground, so the boundary is left implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings. This is a real gap because set_memory_priority and archive_memory overlap directly with the priority and archived fields this tool accepts, and nothing tells the agent which to prefer or whether scope/project_id must be supplied.

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