mcp_engram_demote_from_context

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses that geometry and recall remain intact, that an archival trace is minted, and which edges are wired/removed, providing thorough behavioral understanding.

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?

Three concise sentences front-loaded with the main action, followed by side effects and usage guidance, with zero wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior, constraints, and use cases comprehensively despite no output schema; an agent has enough information to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions; the description adds behavioral context (e.g., concept cannot be primary_goal implicitly reinforced) and explains the purpose of the note and reviewer parameters in the demotion process.

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 demotes a concept from the active serving stack without deleting geometry, specifying the exact actions (archival trace, edge wiring) and differentiates from siblings like goal_update_status.

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?

Explicitly mentions use cases: hygiene demotion, LEG Mark complete, or when goal_update_status is insufficient, giving clear context for when to use.

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