memory_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one important side effect: the memory is automatically re-scored after the edit, so ranking changes. It omits what happens to fields not supplied (e.g. kind retained or reset), whether the edit is reversible, and permission requirements.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and appends the side effect; no filler. It is efficient but too terse to be exemplary.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain the re-scoring consequence in terms an agent can act on, nor does it cover the optional field's effect.

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 100%, so id, kind, and content are already documented in the schema. The description adds no detail on the optional kind parameter or on how content replacement interacts with re-scoring, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (修改) and resource (一条记忆的内容), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not contrast itself with siblings such as memory_remember or memory_delete, though the name makes the mutation role discoverable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to update versus delete-and-recreate via memory_remember, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid id from memory_list or memory_recall. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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