memory_update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it supersedes the old and creates a new version, suggesting a non-deletion update mechanism, but does not disclose whether the old version is fully replaced, archived, or partially retained, nor mention any side effects. It adds some context beyond the annotations but leaves key behavioral details ambiguous.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose ('Update existing knowledge') and then explain the mechanism. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it efficient and scannable.

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 destructiveHint annotation and absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what happens to the old knowledge (deletion vs. versioning) and what the tool returns. It says 'supersedes' and 'creates new version' but leaves the fate of the old entry unclear, and it does not mention the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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%, so all parameters (find, reason, new_content) are already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it maps 'find' to a search query and 'new_content' to the new version, but does not elaborate on 'reason' beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds little.

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 tool updates existing knowledge and describes the process (find, supersede, create new version). It distinguishes from siblings like memory_save (new) and memory_delete (removal) but does not name them explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 implies this tool is for updating existing knowledge, providing context that a search query is needed to locate the old entry. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like memory_save or memory_delete, nor give exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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