mcp_engram_remember_solution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states 'Solutions never decay' and 'auto-pinned to CRS=1.0', indicating persistence and priority, but lacks details on mutation safety, permissions, or side effects.

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, no redundant words, purpose stated upfront. Highly efficient with no fluff.

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 no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is adequate for a simple store operation but leaves gaps: no return value info, no explanation of 'crystallized' or CRS. Could be more complete for a domain-specific tool.

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 all three parameters described inline. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the schema's descriptions for error_pattern and solution, and mentions process_context briefly. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it stores a 'crystallized error→solution pair' as a 'ZEDOS_PRAXIS block', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like mcp_engram_remember by focusing on error-solution pairs, but domain jargon like 'crystallized' and 'ZEDOS_PRAXIS' may obscure meaning.

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 description implies usage for storing resolved errors with solutions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mcp_engram_remember. No when-not-to or context exclusions are mentioned.

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