update_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool replaces the entire file ('full new Markdown content', 'not a diff') and that setting mark_reflection_done resets the outcomes-since-reflection counter. It could add more about response or failure behavior, but the output schema covers return details.

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 compact and front-loads the critical approval gate before the parameter list. Each line earns its place, and the arg formatting is easy to scan.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this description covers all operational essentials: the approval precondition, the full-overwrite semantics, the meaning of each parameter, and the reflection-counter side effect. The output schema handles return-value expectations, so nothing critical is missing.

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 fully compensates. It explains allowed values for kind, clarifies that content must be the complete file rather than a diff, and gives the precise condition for mark_reflection_done. This is substantially more informative than the bare 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?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource, 'Rewrite a memory file', which immediately distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_memory. The args further specify that kind selects 'style' or 'playbook', making the exact target explicit.

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 gives explicit when and when-not guidance: call only after the user approves the draft shown by the insaight-reflect skill, and never overwrite memory silently. This is strong enough for an agent to know exactly when the tool is appropriate, even though no alternative write tool is named.

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