Update XMemo memory

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write/update operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that updates can affect 'content, location, or type' and that an 'exact reference' (memory_id) is required to identify the record. This goes beyond raw annotations without contradicting them.

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-loads the core action, and every phrase earns its place. It avoids fluff, restating the title, or repeating schema details. The structure is efficient and immediately informative.

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 a rich schema and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete to guide usage. It conveys the essential context (when to use, what it updates) and the need for an exact reference. It does not describe return values, but the presence of an output schema makes that unnecessary. A minor omission is explicit mention of potential side effects like conflict detection or supersession, but these are evident from the parameter names.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 18 parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already offers, but it does map 'content', 'location', and 'type' to likely parameters (content, path, memory_type). Since the schema is thorough, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description's mention adds only marginal value.

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 a specific verb ('updates') and the target resource ('a specific saved memory'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'remember' (create), 'forget' (delete), and 'read_memory' by specifying it handles corrections, revisions, moves, or reclassifications. This unambiguously identifies the tool's unique role.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the user asks to correct, revise, move, or reclassify it.' This provides clear contextual triggers. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use 'remember' for entirely new memories), so it stops short of a full 5.

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