memory_proyecto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and partially meets it: it discloses the non-obvious rule that legacy rows with NULL project_id stay visible from every scope, which is genuine added context. However, it says nothing about the effects of rename/merge (destructive?), permissions, or whether switching persists.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the scoping premise is front-loaded ahead of the legacy-row caveat. The 'alias of cuba_proyecto' prefix is the only slightly wasteful element.

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?

A six-action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no per-action explanation leaves major gaps: what stats returns, what merge combines, what rename changes, and what list emits are all unaddressed. The conceptual framing does not compensate for this.

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 100%, with each parameter and the action enum already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the session-binding concept, no syntax or format detail beyond the 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 explains the domain concept (isolating memories per project, session binding) but never states what the tool itself does with the six actions it exposes (list/current/switch/stats/rename/merge). 'alias of cuba_proyecto' is metadata rather than purpose. An agent learns the topic but not the verb+resource of the call.

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?

It references cuba_jornada start --project NAME for binding, but gives no guidance on when to invoke memory_proyecto versus the many sibling memory_*/cuba_* tools, nor when each action is appropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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