update_memory

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is mutable (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'Updates' which is consistent but does not elaborate on side effects, authorization needs, or idempotency. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description's minimal addition is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 a single sentence, which is efficient but could be more informative. It avoids unnecessary words but sacrifices specificity (e.g., naming 'rename' instead of 'update'). This is concise but at the cost of clarity, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 has two parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that only the 'name' can be changed, what the output contains, or how the update affects existing data. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but the description still leaves ambiguity about the tool's exact behavior.

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 50% (id has a format hint, name has no description). The description does not add any parameter-level information. With medium coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so. A score of 3 reflects the baseline for adequate but unhelpful schema support.

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 it updates a translation memory, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_glossary. However, it lacks specificity: the title annotation indicates it's a rename operation, which the description does not mention. This slightly reduces clarity for an agent deciding between update_memory and other mutation tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_memory or delete_memory. It does not specify that this tool is for renaming only, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical use cases. This lack of context forces the agent to infer usage solely from the schema.

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