update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Preserves the original ID and created_at,' which is valuable information beyond the schema. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like irreversibility, permissions, or side effects on related data, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that immediately state the action, provide usage guidance, and add a clarifying behavioral note. Every word earns its place, and the front-loaded structure makes the primary purpose clear at a glance.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and a key preservation behavior. It could mention return values or error cases, but for a simple update operation on a memory entry, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'missing tags' and 'rewording,' which loosely map to the tags and content parameters, but the schema already explains them. No additional parameter-level nuance is provided.

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 and resource: 'Update an existing memory entry.' It also specifies the purpose with concrete examples ('wrong info, missing tags, needs rewording'), distinguishing it from creation tools like capture. The added note about preserving ID and created_at reinforces its scope.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this when a capture needs corrections.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. It implies that for new captures, you would use capture rather than update.

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