mcp_engram_invoke_protocol

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the 7-point verification gate and dry_run option, but does not detail potential side effects, reversal possibility, or error handling. For a mutating tool, more transparency is needed.

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, front-loaded with purpose and key requirement. The AGENTIC-FIRST prefix is a bit jargon-heavy but not redundant. Efficient overall.

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 core functionality and prerequisite, but lacks output description, error conditions, or details on side-effect behavior. With no output schema and nested objects, more completeness would help the agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions args must match the protocol's declared schema and dry_run explanation, but no new meaning. Meets minimum without exceeding.

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 verb 'invoke' and resource 'executable Praxis Protocol block', and distinguishes from sibling tools like verify tools by noting the prerequisite of prior auditing. The AGENTIC-FIRST label and verification gate details further clarify its unique role.

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 states the prerequisite 'Use only on blocks you have previously audited via the verify tools.' Also implies high-value context. Could be improved by naming specific alternative tools for non-audited blocks, but is already strong.

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