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

The description states 'Cambia' (changes) and specifies a return of 'Confirmación del cambio', which discloses that this is a mutating operation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and could be more explicit.

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 concise and well-structured, with clear sections for the levels and parameters. It avoids unnecessary detail while still providing essential 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?

The description includes a 'Returns' section, which gives expected output, and explains the level values in a way that informs the user about the tool's effect. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but for a simple setter, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description elaborates on both parameters: 'id' is defined as the memory ID, and 'nivel' is given three explicit allowed values with their meanings. This adds value beyond the raw schema, which only specifies types (integer and string). It lacks details on validation or whether IDs must exist, but covers the key semantics.

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 verb 'Cambia' and resource 'nivel jerárquico de un recuerdo' clearly indicate the tool's function of setting a memory's hierarchical level. It is distinct from sibling tools like compress_hipocampo or consolidate_hipocampo, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 explains the purpose and the meaning of the level values, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar siblings like compress_hipocampo or consolidate_hipocampo. The user must infer the appropriate context from the level descriptions.

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