Update an existing memory entry. Automatically re-embeds when title or content changes to maintain search relevance.
Update an existing memory. Re-embeds if title/content changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| memory_id | Yes | ||
| related_ids | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only behavioral disclosure is the re-embedding trigger on title/content change. With no annotations, the description should cover idempotency, required permissions, error scenarios, and return behavior, but it does not.
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 brief sentences, front-loaded with the core action. However, conciseness sacrifices necessary detail for a tool with many 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?
Given 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, return values, or typical use cases.
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, but it provides no meaning for any of the 9 parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no extra value.
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 clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'memory', and hints at a side effect (re-embedding). It distinguishes from sibling creation/deletion tools, though it does not explicitly mention that it requires an existing memory.
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_store or memory_delete. Among many sibling tools, no context is provided for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.