memoryguard_memory_update

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

Descriptions carry the full burden when no annotations are provided. This description does disclose a key side effect: 'Records a DecisionEvent,' and the verb 'Update' signals mutation. However, it does not mention reversibility, permission requirements, effects on related records or bindings, or what happens to unspecified fields, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences with no filler or repetition. The primary action is front-loaded, and the side-effect note is economically stated. Every phrase adds meaningful 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is minimal but paired with a richly descriptive schema that covers parameter nuances such as the audience restriction for 'always' records and atom_id mapping. The missing pieces—explicit sibling routing and return-value behavior—are not critical given the schema's strength and the absence of an output schema. Overall, the description plus schema provides sufficient context for 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. Mentioning body, kind, and status only echoes field names without adding semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema is already doing the heavy lifting.

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 operation ('Update') and the resource ('existing memory record'), with a parenthetical hinting at updatable fields (body, kind, status). The word 'existing' helps separate it from memoryguard_memory_write, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools. It is specific and unambiguous enough for an agent to grasp the core action.

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 intended use—modifying an existing memory record—is implied by the wording, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over memoryguard_memory_write or memoryguard_memory_delete. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing are provided. The agent must infer usage from the action verb and sibling names.

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