update_memory

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses meaningful behaviors: rejection when locked, ownership enforcement when agent_id is provided, sanitizer max-length truncation with a truncated:true response flag, strip of [Memory from ...] annotations, and refusal of content consisting only of those annotations. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the primary action is front-loaded, followed by key edge cases (lock, ownership) and the sanitizer behavior. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the critical operational details: what happens on locked memories, ownership semantics, sanitizer behavior, truncation signaling, and refusal of annotation-only content. Nothing essential for correctly calling the tool is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the sanitizer caps content length, sets truncated:true, and strips annotation prefixes, and that ownership is enforced only when agent_id is provided. These details enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Update memory content by ID', a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself by noting lock rejection and ownership enforcement, which separates it from store, delete_memory, and lock_memory 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?

The description implies when to use the tool through context like 'same sanitizer as store', but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as store or lock_memory. The usage context is clear but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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