update

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it mutates the memory row in LanceDB, lists allowed and blocked fields, states that blocked fields are silently ignored, and describes the return value including error case ('not found'). This is comprehensive.

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 well-structured into sections (purpose, constraints, behavior, args, returns). Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is concise yet informative.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure (updated memory object or error). It fully covers the id and fields parameters, lists allowed values, and addresses error handling. No gaps remain for a mutation tool with these parameters.

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 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explicitly listing allowed and blocked fields for the 'fields' parameter. This clarifies permissible values and constraints not evident from the schema's additionalProperties: true.

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 specifies the tool updates memory metadata including tags, weight, needs_review flag. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it is used 'after consolidation or to manually adjust a memory's importance.' The verb 'update' and resource 'memory metadata' are specific.

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 context on when to use ('after consolidation or to manually adjust a memory's importance') and explicitly states what cannot be done ('Cannot change the embedding vector or id'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'delete_memory' or 'forget' for when not to use.

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