delete_hipocampo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states the irreversible nature and consequences of deletion ('Esta operación es irreversible. Una vez eliminado, el recuerdo no podrá recuperarse ni aparecerá en búsquedas futuras.'). However, it does not disclose what happens if the ID does not exist or any required permissions, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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, starting with a clear main statement, followed by an important caution, and then organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes essential details without unnecessary filler.

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 single-parameter delete operation, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, parameter semantics, and return type. Since an output schema is present, detailed return structure is not required. A minor gap is the lack of behavior for a non-existent ID, but overall the tool is adequately described.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining the 'id' parameter as 'ID numérico del recuerdo a eliminar.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's simple integer type, clearly identifying what the ID represents and how it is used.

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 function: 'Elimina un recuerdo del Hipocampo (memoria_vectorial) por su ID.' This specifies the verb, resource, and method of operation, and it naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_hipocampo, update_hipocampo, and decay_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 implies when to use the tool by emphasizing that the operation is irreversible and the memory cannot be recovered or appear in future searches. This provides clear context for permanent deletion, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it compared to siblings, such as decay_hipocampo for non-destructive adjustments.

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