save_hipocampo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details automatic embedding, duplicate detection threshold (>0.9) with warning and skip behavior, force override, auto-linking (>0.75), hierarchical memory levels (episodica, semantica, automatica) and their retention implications, plus the return format. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral information.

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 well-organized: a clear lead sentence, a brief functional overview, a note on duplicate handling, then a structured Args list with examples, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and several special behaviors (duplicate detection, auto_link, hierarchical levels), the description covers all essential aspects: the core action, parameter semantics, edge cases (force, similarity thresholds), and return value. No critical gaps remain.

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 (only titles/defaults), so the description's Args section must compensate. It does so thoroughly, explaining all 8 parameters with types, defaults, and examples, including hierarchical memory levels and category examples. This fully covers the schema's lack of detail.

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: 'Guarda un recuerdo en el Hipocampo' (saves a memory in the hippocampus). It specifies the resource and adds context about automatic embedding and persistence for semantic search, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_hipocampo or delete_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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (saving memories) and describes key behaviors like duplicate detection and force override. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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