Correct existing memories instead of re-adding them; change kind, content, or expiry (null clears it), and refresh timestamps so revised facts rank higher.
Correct a memory instead of re-adding. Bumps updated_at so fresher facts rank higher. Pass valid_until null to clear expiry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| kind | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| valid_until | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0-devDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds value beyond them: it discloses the updated_at side effect (ranking implication) and the valid_until=null clearing behavior. These are real behavioral traits not derivable from the structured fields.
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?
Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, each adding a distinct fact (routing, ranking effect, param behavior). No filler.
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 simple 4-param update tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage routing, side effects, and the trickiest parameter. Only kind's enum domain and partial-update semantics are unstated.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully explains valid_until's null semantics but leaves id, kind's enum values, and content's role undocumented. Partial compensation justifies a mid score.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Correct a memory") and explicitly frames it as the alternative to re-adding, which separates it from the add_memory sibling. It's clear, though "correct" is slightly softer than a crisp "update existing memory fields".
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 phrase "instead of re-adding" gives a clear when-to-use signal that routes the agent away from add_memory. No explicit when-not or edge conditions, but the core selection decision is covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.