Update a memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose important behavior: mutable fields are edited in place, and content changes create a superseding memory by default unless supersede=false. However, it omits side effects on the original memory, return values, and 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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every clause adds relevant information, and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

The description captures the main update logic and the crucial supersede behavior, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves gaps around return data, permanence of edits, and what happens to the original memory when superseding occurs.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between content and supersede and clarifying 'in place' semantics. It does not add detail for confidence and importance, but the schema covers their numeric ranges.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('memory') and enumerates the mutable fields. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like remember, recall, and forget by focusing on in-place modification of existing memories.

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 when to use the tool by framing it as updating existing memories, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools like merge_memory or consolidate, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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