restaurar_historica

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure itself. It does reveal that the embedding is automatically reconstructed and the memory moves to the HOT tier. It does not mention whether the historical copy is deleted, whether the operation is idempotent, or what side effects may occur, leaving some important gaps.

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 compact and information-dense: three short sentences convey the action, the source/destination, the automatic embedding reconstruction, and the resulting tier. The Args line is necessary because the schema gives no parameter description, so every sentence earns its place.

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 with an output schema, the core operation and expected behavior are adequately described. Minor gaps remain, such as failure behavior and whether the source memory is retained or removed, but these are secondary for this low-complexity tool.

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 schema provides only an integer type with zero description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that historica_id is 'ID de la memoria en memoria_historica,' which gives the agent the precise meaning needed to supply this required parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Restaura una memoria desde memoria_historica a memoria_vectorial.' It also adds distinctive behavior details — automatic embedding reconstruction and return to the HOT tier — that clearly separate it from the many hipocampo sibling tools.

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: when a memory is in memoria_historica and needs to be restored to the HOT tier. However, it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or comparison with related operations like rollback_checkpoint or consolidate_hipocampo.

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