mnemos

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

Annotations cover the destructive and read-only profile, but the description adds valuable behavioral context via 'PATCH semantics', indicating that unspecified fields are preserved rather than overwritten. It does not address the non-idempotent nature declared in annotations, nor does it explain what happens when the ID is not found.

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 compact at only four words with zero redundancy. However, for a destructive operation with four parameters, it borders on insufficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 the presence of annotations covering safety hints and 100% schema coverage, the description meets minimum viability by clarifying PATCH semantics. However, gaps remain regarding error handling, return values (though none are declared), and differentiation from sibling tools.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the structured schema already documents all parameters ('id', 'content', 'summary', 'tags'). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, earning the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 provides the specific verb 'Update' and resource 'memory', and the parenthetical '(PATCH semantics)' clarifies that partial modifications are supported. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'mnemos_store' (which likely creates new memories), leaving minor ambiguity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., memory must exist), nor does it indicate when 'mnemos_store' or 'mnemos_delete' would be more appropriate.

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