Memory Update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that each update appends a revision, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on what appending a revision entails (e.g., history retention, reversibility) or any authorization requirements.

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, efficient sentence. It is not wasteful, but it could be more informative without becoming verbose. It earns its place for stating the core action and effect.

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's complexity (16 parameters, nested objects, enums, output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not cover the effect on existing data, return values, or the full range of updateable fields. Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks essential context.

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 16 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no details about parameters. It does not mention which fields can be updated or how they affect the memory entry. The schema itself has enums and nested objects, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 action ('Update') and the effect ('append a revision') on a specific resource ('a stored memory entry'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like localnest_memory_store (create) and localnest_memory_delete (delete).

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. It does not mention when to use memory_update vs memory_store for creation, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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