mcp_engram_pin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: pinning prevents eviction, sets CRS to 1.0, and that pinned blocks still support relate/update. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but covers the most important aspects.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a usage block. Every sentence adds information. It is front-loaded with the core action, then follows with guidance. No redundancies.

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 complexity of the tool (pinning with CRS, autophage daemon), no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context. It mentions a sibling tool. Could add return value or confirmation, but not necessary for basic use.

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% with a clear description for the single parameter 'concept'. The description adds value by giving examples (e.g., 'task_board' or 'system_architecture') and explaining the parameter's purpose, which exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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's action: 'Set a concept's CRS to 1.0 and lock it so the Autophagy Daemon never evicts it.' It specifies the resource (concept) and the verb (set/lock), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_engram_forget_old by naming that tool explicitly.

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?

Includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' guidance: foundational knowledge that must survive forever, and 'Do NOT pin everything.' Also points to an alternative tool (mcp_engram_forget_old) for cleaning up unpinned blocks. This is model guidance.

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