update_memory

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

Description indicates an append operation, which implies non-destructive addition. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose side effects, size limits, or return behavior. The presence of an output schema mitigates but does not fully cover behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loads the action. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for parameters.

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 simple append tool with output schema, the description covers the basic action. However, it omits details like persistence guarantees, error conditions, or operational constraints that would aid an agent.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description. The description adds examples ('e.g., a market observation, trade record'), providing semantic context beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'append' and resource 'persistent memory file'. It is specific about the action, distinguishing it from other memory tools like memory_recall, though not explicitly differentiating.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_save or query_memory_graph. No when-not-to scenarios or prerequisites mentioned.

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