mcp_engram_ack_edit_arc

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool unblocks repeat context_for_edit and that skip is only for read-only passes. However, it does not describe what happens during an ack or skip (e.g., state changes, reversibility, auth requirements), leaving some 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?

Two targeted sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose upfront, the second gives guidance. Every word 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 tool with moderate complexity and no output schema, the description explains core functionality and usage. It references relevant context (ENGRAM_EDIT_ARC_GATE) and sibling tools. However, it assumes familiarity with 'edit-arc debt' which might require additional context for some agents.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a usage hint for 'skip' and 'note' but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers (e.g., 'Reason for skip or ack' is already in schema).

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 action ('Acknowledge or skip pending edit-arc debt') and its purpose ('unblocks repeat context_for_edit on the same path when ENGRAM_EDIT_ARC_GATE=hard'). It distinguishes itself from the referenced siblings mcp_engram_update and mcp_engram_context_for_edit.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Prefer mcp_engram_update on *__arc after edits; use skip=true with an honest note only for read-only passes.' This tells the agent when to use skip and when to prefer an alternative tool.

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