update_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a missing point_id errors (existence checked first), that text triggers re-embedding and overwrites stored text, that metadata is replaced entirely, that empty string keeps existing metadata, and that text=None plus empty metadata is an error. It omits auth/permission requirements and concurrency/atomicity behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 key fact (in-place update under the same ID) is front-loaded, and the conditional semantics that follow are dense but each sentence carries load-bearing information. Slightly heavy for the topic but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description thoroughly covers mutation semantics, error conditions, and validation rules for a no-annotation write tool. The only missing context is permission/authorization and any side effects beyond the target point.

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 description must compensate, and it does: point_id must exist (checked first), text=None preserves existing text/vector while a value re-embeds and overwrites, metadata accepts a JSON string or object and is replaced wholesale, empty string preserves it, and collection scopes the update. This is more meaning than the bare schema provides for all four parameters.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing memory (point) in place under the same ID'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like save_memory and delete_memory. An agent can tell this is an in-place mutation keyed by point_id without opening the schema.

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 explains the conditions under which different behaviors occur (text given vs None, metadata given vs empty), which is useful implied guidance. However, it never names alternatives or explicitly states when to prefer update_memory over save_memory/delete_memory, so contextual routing is left to inference.

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