mcp_engram_goal_update_status

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

Discloses the requirement for creating a trace on specific status transitions, but lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. With no annotations, the description only partially meets the need for behavioral 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?

Two tight sentences: first states core action and allowed values, second adds critical behavioral note. No filler, front-loaded, every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Missing explanation of return values (no output schema) and semantics of each status. Does not address constraints like status transition ordering. Adequate for a simple mutation, but could be more complete given the system complexity and sibling tools.

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 provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by reinforcing valid statuses and noting the expected action for completed/demoted, going beyond the schema's enum listing.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'update' and resource 'status of an existing goal', lists allowed statuses, and distinguishes from sibling tools like mcp_engram_goal_create (creates new goal) and mcp_engram_goal_status (likely reads 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 instructs caller to create a Goal Completion/Demotion Trace when moving to completed or demoted, providing key usage guidance. Does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for status changes.

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