update_memory

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that changing content triggers vector recalculation and Markdown refresh, which is a key behavioral trait beyond a simple update. It could mention other aspects like idempotency or auth needs, but the disclosed behavior adds value.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and key behavior, followed by usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 is adequate for a simple update tool. It covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral effect. However, it does not mention return values (no output schema) and omits that 'id' is required, but these gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 compensate. It adds meaning to the 'content' parameter by noting it triggers recalculation, but does not explain other parameters (id, tags, scope, title, category). This is partial compensation, leading to a score of 3 (baseline 4 with no param info is not fully met).

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 'Update existing memory' and specifies that changing content recalculates vectors and refreshes Markdown. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' (create) and 'get_memory' (read) by stating 'call when modifying/supplementing existing memory'.

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 explicitly says 'call when modifying/supplementing existing memory', which provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the sibling context implies differentiation from creation or retrieval tools.

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