set_nivel_hipocampo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the behavioral consequences of each level (e.g., episodica is comprimible, semantica is protected, automatica is never compressed), which adds valuable context beyond the schema. It does not detail error handling or reversibility, but the core behavior is well covered.

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-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of levels with explanations, followed by Args and Returns sections. It is concise with no unnecessary words, and every sentence provides meaningful information.

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 setter tool, the description is fairly complete: it explains the levels, parameters, and return value. It could be more complete by mentioning handling of invalid IDs or invalid nivel values, but the explicit enumeration of valid nivel values mitigates one of these gaps. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'id' as the memory ID and 'nivel' as the new level, explicitly listing all valid values. This provides complete semantic meaning for the agent.

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 with a specific verb ('Cambia') and resource ('nivel jerárquico de un recuerdo'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on changing hierarchical levels, which is a unique operation compared to siblings like compress_hipocampo or update_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 context by explaining the three levels (episodica, semantica, automatica) and their compression/checkpoint implications, which implies when each level might be appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria.

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