hebbrix_update

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is disclosed. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it preserves version history and may perform an indexing wait. It does not fully describe side effects of updating importance/content, but the description goes beyond annotation basics.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into indexing behavior. The wait_for_index guidance is a bit dense but earns its place as it prevents repeated update calls.

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 core purpose, the alternative tool relationship, the indexing wait behavior, and the fallback polling method. Given the output schema exists and annotations describe destructiveness, this is complete enough for an agent to call 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 input schema has no descriptions for parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains content meaning implicitly (new content), and explicitly explains wait_for_index semantics. It does not explain memory_id or importance, but memory_id is self-evident and importance is reasonably inferable as a numeric priority.

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 tool updates a memory in place while keeping version history, and explicitly distinguishes it from remembering a contradicting copy. Among siblings like hebbrix_remember and hebbrix_forget, this distinguishes the corrective update operation.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: to CORRECT a stored fact instead of remembering a contradicting copy. It also provides guidance on the wait_for_index behavior and tells the agent to poll hebbrix_get(id) if searchable is false, which is actionable usage guidance.

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