plur_episode_to_engram

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no further behavioral details. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens to the original episode), required permissions, or return behavior. Beyond the annotations, the description is silent on behavior traits.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action. It is concise (17 words) with no extraneous information, earning its place efficiently.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations beyond basic hints), the description covers the core purpose but lacks behavioral details and output information. It is adequate but leaves gaps about the promotion process and return value.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all four parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline score is 3 for high coverage.

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 action ('Promote an episode to a persistent episodic engram') and the context ('when a session event deserves long-term memory'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like plur_promote by specifying the source (episode) and target (engram) precisely.

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 a basic use case ('useful when a session event deserves long-term memory'), but does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternatives. Sibling tools like plur_capture and plur_learn could be confused, but no exclusion guidance is given.

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