update_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It explains the merge-like behavior of leaving fields empty to keep existing values, but it does not disclose what happens on invalid memory_id, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence usage rule, then a clear parameter list. Every line earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 four-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. The main gaps are behavioral details, such as missing-memory handling and how to clear a field, but these are not critical for basic correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter beyond the schema's type/title/default fields. 'Leave empty to keep existing' adds real semantic value, though it leaves unspecified how one would intentionally clear a field.

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 a specific action, 'Update an existing memory,' identifying both the verb and resource. The use case in the next sentence helps distinguish this from save_memory and recall_memories, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tools.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool: when a previous memory is outdated or needs correction. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly compare with save_memory, but the provided context is sufficient for most decisions.

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