mcp_engram_invoke_protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an experimental vertical slice and does NOT execute real protocol side effects yet, which is crucial for a tool that might otherwise look like a real invocation. It also warns about dry_run preference, but does not detail other behaviors such as return format or error handling.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately communicates the experimental state and the pipeline, and the second sentence provides key cautions and alternatives. Information is front-loaded and scannable.

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 the tool's experimental nature, the description covers purpose, safety (no real side effects), and alternatives (verify tools). However, with no output schema, it does not describe what the tool returns, which is a notable gap for a pipeline-style tool. Still, for a stub/experimental tool, the description is largely complete.

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 the parameters are already documented. The description adds value by recommending dry_run=true, which gives practical guidance beyond the schema's default value description. This extra hint elevates it above the baseline.

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 runs a 7-point gate (tag, CRS, contract, lawfulness summary) and then stub_dispatch, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it is not a product automation surface and pointing to verify tools for audits.

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 to prefer dry_run=true, which is a clear usage directive. It also states 'Not a product automation surface; use verify tools for audits,' providing both an exclusion and an alternative tool category, which is strong guidance.

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