update_memo

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or behavior (e.g., whether it overwrites fields or merges). It only provides parameter format details.

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 concise, with a clear header and list of parameters. It avoids unnecessary text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 covers the basic purpose and parameters, but lacks usage context and behavioral details. With an output schema present, return value explanation is less critical, but the description still feels incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 adds value: it specifies memo_id format (e.g., 'G3o72r9oijTWFxy9ueWzW7' not the full path) and lists visibility options (PRIVATE, PROTECTED, PUBLIC). For content, it merely states 'new content', but overall it provides meaningful parameter context.

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 states '更新备忘录' (update memo), which clearly indicates it updates an existing memo. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_memo, delete_memo, etc., by being the only tool with an update verb. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_memo for new memos). The description only lists parameters without usage context.

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