update_hipocampo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds meaningful behavioral details: content triggers automatic embedding regeneration, and unprovided fields remain unchanged. It also states the return type as a confirmation. It doesn't cover error cases or permissions, but it discloses the most important side effects for an update operation.

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 well-structured: purpose first, key behavioral notes, then a clear Args list, followed by Returns. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant 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 5-parameter update tool with an output schema, the description covers all parameters, partial-update semantics, and the embedding regeneration side effect. It doesn't mention failure behavior or authorization requirements, but these are not critical for the core update operation and the output schema likely defines the confirmation structure.

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 by documenting all five parameters with semantic cues: id as numeric, content as optional with embedding regeneration, memory_type with an example, code as a short label, and categories as a new list. This goes well beyond the schema's bare type declarations.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Actualiza un recuerdo existente en el Hipocampo (memoria_vectorial)' — explicitly an update operation on existing memories. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_hipocampo (create) 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?

It provides context that the tool updates only provided fields ('Los campos no proporcionados no se modifican') and that content triggers embedding regeneration, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with siblings.

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