update

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions updating content and metadata but does not specify side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent. More detail would improve transparency.

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 sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded, making it easy to read.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator, updated memory object). Given the complexity and number of parameters, the description could be more complete by indicating the return value.

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 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains parameters well. The description adds value by clarifying how to find the memory and what operations are possible (replace content, update metadata, or both), which is beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool updates an existing memory, specifies how to find it (by ref or category+title), and what can be updated (content, metadata, or both). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'remember' (create) and 'forget' (delete).

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 provides guidance on how to identify the memory to update (by ref or category+title), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with other update-like siblings such as 'knowledge_merge' or 'memory_ratify'.

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