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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that memories are promoted and content may be compressed, and it explains dry_run behavior, but it does not clarify how optional compression is triggered given there is no compression parameter, nor whether the operation is reversible.

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, front-loaded with a clear summary, and uses a clean Args section. The only minor issue is the phrase 'opcionalmente comprimiendo su contenido,' which introduces behavior not backed by any parameter, creating slight ambiguity.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the two parameters are well documented. The main gaps are the missing explanation of how the optional compression is controlled and the lack of explicit side-effect or reversibility information, though these are not fatal for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: min_age_days is the minimum age in days and dry_run previews the consolidation. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 verb ('migra') and resource ('memorias episódicas' -> 'semánticas'), and it explains the exact consolidation algorithm. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like compress_hipocampo and decay_hipocampo by the described 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?

The behavior implies a maintenance use case—consolidating old episodic memories—but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be selected.

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