Memory Update Fact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool edits an existing fact and that omitted fields retain their values, which defines the update semantics clearly. It does not mention failure behavior or permissions, but the core side-effect contract is stated.

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 short paragraphs with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage guidance follows immediately, making it easy to scan and apply.

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 six-parameter CRUD update with no annotations, the description covers the operation, partial-update semantics, usage context, and prerequisite lookup. It doesn't detail error cases or return values, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain response structure.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning with 'omitted fields keep their value,' which explains how the optional nullable fields behave. It also tells the agent where to obtain fact_id, reinforcing the key parameter's semantics beyond the 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Edit an existing fact by id') and immediately clarifies the partial-update behavior. The follow-up sentence explicitly contrasts it with saving a new fact, distinguishing it from siblings like memory_remember and memory_remember_conversation.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this instead of saving a new fact when something changed') and gives a concrete example. It also names the prerequisite ('Get the fact_id from memory_search first'), leaving no ambiguity about the intended workflow.

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