mcp_engram_pin

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 key behavioral traits: setting CRS to 1.0, locking to prevent manual forget_old eviction, and that pinned blocks still support relate/update. However, it does not mention reversibility (e.g., how to unpin) or behavior on non-existent concepts, leaving minor gaps.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the primary action, then provides usage guidance in a clear section. Every sentence adds value without fluff, achieving excellent conciseness.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, usage context, exclusions, and relationships to other tools. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'concept' parameter. The description adds usage context but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set a concept's CRS to 1.0 and lock it.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining the locking behavior and referencing forget_old. This is a unique and well-defined purpose.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly lists use cases (foundational knowledge, architecture decisions) and provides exclusions ('Do NOT pin everything'). It also references an alternative tool (mcp_engram_forget_old) for cleanup, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus others.

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