修正长期记忆

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: partial-update semantics (omit unchanged fields) and a content norm (write the corrected standalone fact, not a process note like 'user corrected'). It does not cover auth or side effects on related memories.

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 dense sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose, then the operational rule. Every clause earns its place with no filler, though the second sentence packs several distinct constraints that could be slightly clearer if split.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and near-zero schema documentation, the description covers the key behavioral contract (partial update, content correction) but leaves too many parameters unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 only 6% across 16 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It meaningfully clarifies the `content` parameter and the general partial-update contract, but leaves id, kind, tags, status, validFrom/validTo, confidence, importance, namespace and source undocumented in both description and 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?

States a specific verb+resource (修改…记忆) and narrows scope to already-existing memories that are inaccurate, outdated, or incomplete, which implicitly separates it from memory_remember (create) and memory_forget (delete). It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: correcting existing, inaccurate, stale, or incomplete memories, plus the partial-update rule (only submit fields that change). It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer memory_remember), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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