mcp_engram_ack_edit_arc

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool unblocks repeat context_for_edit on the same path when gate is hard, and explains the two modes (skip vs acknowledge). The few-shot examples illustrate behavior. However, it does not detail side effects, authorization needs, or what the acknowledgment entails beyond unblocking.

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 with purpose first, then guidance, then examples. It is front-loaded but includes several examples which, while helpful, add length. Could be slightly more concise, but the structure supports comprehension.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters (none required), the description covers the tool's purpose, triggers, and parameter usage via examples. It lacks return value information but is otherwise complete for its 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantic roles (skip vs ack, lineage_check usage) and providing concrete examples that show parameter combinations, enhancing understanding beyond the 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 acknowledges or skips pending edit-arc debt, unblocking repeat context_for_edit. It distinguishes from sibling mcp_engram_update by directing to prefer it for __arc updates, providing clear purpose and differentiation.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (post-edit for acknowledging arc debt) and when not to (prefer mcp_engram_update on __arc after edits, use skip only for read-only passes). It provides alternative and context.

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