memory_update

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It reveals key behavioral traits: it is a direct field update, not re-processed through reconciliation, and requires at least one field to update beyond the ID. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying operational semantics, though it doesn't address permissions or return behavior.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence provides necessary information. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and complete schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral caveats, and parameter constraints. It does not mention return values, but with no output schema this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds a crucial semantic constraint: 'Provide the memory ID and at least one field to update,' which is not enforced by the schema (only id is required). This clarifies invocation requirements and adds value 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 clearly states the action: 'Update an existing memory.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying it modifies existing memories rather than creating, retrieving, deleting, or searching. The verb 'update' plus resource 'memory' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this when information has changed, needs correction, or should be enriched with additional context.' It also sets expectations with 'direct field update' and notes the need for at least one field. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it's just under a full 5.

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