mcp_engram_goal_decompose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the automatic creation of 'decomposes_into' relations, which is a useful side effect. However, it does not discuss idempotency, error handling (e.g., parent not existing), permissions, or whether existing children are affected. A score of 3 reflects adequate but incomplete transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main action, and includes only essential information. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema, a relatively simple set of parameters, and multiple sibling tools, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and side effect. It could mention constraints like requiring an existing parent, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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?

Both parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. The description does not elaborate on parameter values beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds no extra semantic value for the parameters.

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 creates child goals under an existing parent goal, and it positions itself as 'the primary mechanism for breaking down complex intent'. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like mcp_engram_goal_create (root goals) and mcp_engram_goal_get_children (reading).

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 says it is 'the primary mechanism for breaking down complex intent', which implies when to use it for decomposition. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide comparisons with other goal-related tools such as mcp_engram_goal_create or mcp_engram_goal_update_status. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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