decay_hipocampo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the decay rule (exponential, half-life 90 days), the safety mode (dry_run=True shows state without modifying), and the destructive effect (dry_run=False deletes links with weight < 0.01). This is clear and transparent, though it could mention if the operation is reversible.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by mechanism, parameter behavior, and return value. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core behavior, decay rule, side effects (deletion), safety mode, and return type. Given the output schema exists, the return note is sufficient. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the only parameter dry_run: default true shows current state, false applies decay and deletes weak links. This adds full meaning 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Aplica decaimiento temporal a los pesos de los enlaces del grafo.' It specifies the verb (apply), the resource (link weights), and the mechanism (temporal decay with half-life). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compress_hipocampo or consolidate_hipocampo.

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 how to use the tool (dry_run=True for preview, dry_run=False for actual decay) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The unique purpose is implied, but no direct comparison with sibling tools is given.

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