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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: link decay uses a 90-day half-life, links below 0.01 are deleted, episodic memories are archived to memory_historica, and excluded categories are enumerated. It also explicitly warns that dry_run=False executes changes.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary, then uses clearly labeled sections for ENLACES, MEMORIAS, Protecciones, Args, and Returns. Every section earns its place and the bulleted protections are easy to scan.

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 description covers behavior, safety protections, dry-run semantics, and the return report, making it largely complete for invocation. A minor ambiguity remains in the phrase 'sin acceso ni protección a memoria_historica,' and min_age_days is expressly described for memories but not for links.

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%, so the description compensates by defining both parameters: dry_run as read-only by default versus executing changes, and min_age_days as the minimum candidate age in days. The defaults already exist in the schema, but the semantic meaning is added here.

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 concrete operation ('Aplica decaimiento temporal') on specific resources: graph links and old memories. It goes further with distinct sub-behaviors for ENLACES and MEMORIAS, making its purpose unmistakable even among many hipocampo 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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer decay_hipocampo over related maintenance tools such as consolidate_hipocampo, compress_hipocampo, or hipocampo_maintenance. The protection list is a safety rule, not an explicit usage decision or alternative-routing instruction.

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