memory_edit

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

Description discloses that it tracks edit history and returns old_content_preview for audit trail. It also explains parameter behavior (content unchanged if omitted, metadata merged). Without annotations, this is good but could mention permissions or reversibility.

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?

Description is concise, uses a clear structure with a usage statement and args breakdown. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and 23 siblings, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return behavior. It lacks error handling details but is adequate for a basic edit tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds full semantics for all three parameters: id (required), content (optional, replaces if provided), and metadata (JSON string, merges with example). This adds significant value beyond the schema types.

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 'Edit an existing memory's content or metadata' and provides specific use cases like correcting vendor info, updating prices, adding context. This distinguishes it from siblings such as memory_store (create) or memory_list (list).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to correct, update, or add context to existing memories. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context and examples imply it's for edits only, not for creation (memory_store) or retrieval (memory_query).

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