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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses mutating/destructive behaviors including merging duplicates, compressing old memories, and purging access logs older than 30 days. It also flags sibling tools as destructive, helping the agent understand the broader risk landscape. It could be even more explicit about the destructive nature of the purge/checkpoint steps in this tool itself, but the listed actions already convey this.

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 a tight numbered list with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, each step earns its place, and the caveat about destructive sibling tools is succinctly appended.

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 zero-argument orchestration tool, the description is complete: it lists all phases, names excluded/related tools, and states the return value ('Reporte consolidado del mantenimiento'). An agent can invoke it correctly with no further information.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (100% coverage). The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs; no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Ejecuta el ciclo completo de mantenimiento.' It then details the five concrete phases, making it unmistakable what the tool does and how it differs from more granular siblings like hipocampo_health, hipocampo_dedup, and hipocampo_tune.

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 usage context: run this for a full maintenance cycle, while hipocampo_budget and decay_hipocampo are executed manually or via separate cron because they are destructive and require a prior dry run. It does not explicitly contrast against every individual sibling, but the scope distinction is strong.

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