update

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: 'Does not change createdAt' and the constraint of updating only 'active memory.' However, it omits important mutation semantics such as merge vs. replace behavior, error cases (e.g., URI not found), whether updatedAt changes, and auth requirements. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is not verbose and includes the essential usage condition and a key behavioral note without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides some essential context: purpose, usage condition, a behavioral guarantee, and accepted fields. However, it lacks details about return value, error handling, partial vs. full replacement, and specific constraints like priority enum semantics. Given the tool's nested parameter structure and the absence of annotations, the description is only moderately complete.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for the 'fields' object and its properties (67% coverage), and the description reinforces the accepted fields. The description adds the 'exact uri' requirement and the behavioral note about createdAt, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the enum for priority or the meaning of disclosure, leaving gaps that the schema partially fills. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an existing active memory by exact uri.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create, read, list, and delete by specifying it modifies an existing active memory and requires the exact URI. It also lists the accepted fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use only when you already know the URI.' This guides the agent to use search/read if the URI is unknown. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion scenarios (e.g., when to use create instead), so it falls short of full guidance.

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