memory_update

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it mentions optimistic concurrency (implying expected_revision is required), a full audit snapshot (indicating every update is logged), and which fields are immutable. Since annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, the description adds concurrency and audit details, enhancing transparency without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and concurrency/audit traits, followed by a compact bullet list of editable and immutable fields. No redundant phrasing; every sentence earns its place.

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 a nested object and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: the concurrency mechanism, audit behavior, allowed fields, and when to use a sibling. An agent has everything needed to construct a valid call (memory_id, changes with only editable fields, expected_revision) and to avoid misuse.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by listing the editable fields (title, content, type, confidence, importance, source, tags) and explaining that expected_revision is for optimistic concurrency. It also tells the agent which fields to exclude (scope, validity, supersedes), giving clear semantics for the 'changes' object beyond the generic 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 states a specific verb 'Correct' with a resource ('content/metadata'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling memory_store by noting that scope, validity, and supersedes are immutable and should be handled there. This makes the tool's role unambiguous: updating/correcting existing memory entries rather than storing new facts.

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-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it lists editable fields and states that immutable fields (scope, validity, supersedes) require memory_store instead. This directly tells an agent when to select this tool over alternatives, eliminating guesswork.

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