memory_update

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context beyond safety flags. It does: it discloses the non-obvious side-effect that the tool 'Regenerates the item's embedding so semantic search reflects the new content,' and clarifies it is not bound to a freshness check. It stops short of addressing failure modes or reversibility, but for a simple update tool the disclosure is solid.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: action+scope, side-effect, and id-sourcing/routing. The main purpose is front-loaded and the alternative-tool note is kept in a parenthetical so it does not distract from the primary use.

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 3-parameter update tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: the operation, the side-effect on semantic search, how to obtain the id, and the branch case where memory_correct is the right sibling. The absence of a return-value spec is minor given the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates that the id comes from memory_query or memory_list_items and that title is optional, which the schema already documents; it adds no new parameter format or syntax. It does not need to compensate because the schema fully covers all three parameters.

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 action — 'Edit any saved memory's content (and optionally its title) by id' — with a clear resource and selection mechanism. The scoping phrase 'for general corrections, not tied to a freshness check' explicitly separates it from memory_correct, and it reads as distinct from memory_delete, memory_move_item, and memory_ingest among the 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?

Names the exact alternative (memory_correct) and the condition that should route the agent away ('flagged by memory_check_freshness after related code changed'). Also tells the agent where to obtain the required id ('Get the id from memory_query or memory_list_items'). This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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