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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that content triggers embedding regeneration and that unspecified fields remain unchanged. However, it does not mention error cases, permission needs, reversibility, or side effects on related memories, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose and key behavioral notes, followed by a clear structured list of parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or fluff.

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 5-parameter update tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, core behavior, and all parameters. Since an output schema exists, the minimal 'Returns' section is acceptable. It lacks explicit usage boundaries and error conditions, but the essentials are present.

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%, but the description's Args section compensates fully. It explains id as a numeric ID, content as new text with embedding regeneration, memory_type with example values, code as a short label, and categories as a list. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Actualiza un recuerdo existente en el Hipocampo (memoria_vectorial).' This clearly states the operation and target. It also distinguishes itself from the many sibling hipocampo tools, none of which perform a general update of an existing memory.

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 implies usage: update an existing memory record. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_hipocampo, link_hipocampo, or compress_hipocampo. There is no 'use when' or 'do not use when' guidance, so the usage context is only inferred.

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