mcp_engram_scar

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

Despite no annotations, the description explains the key behavioral outcome: it creates a geometric repeller that causes a CRS penalty and topological deflection, preventing the agent from attempting the same bad solution. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or has side effects on other concepts.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the critical trigger condition, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: trigger, purpose, and parameter context.

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 specialized nature of the tool (memory scarring) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the core use case and trigger but lacks details on return values, reversibility, or error conditions. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, and the input schema already provides clear definitions for both parameters (concept and magnitude). The description adds only implicit context (e.g., 'failed_approach_x' example) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 clearly defines the tool's purpose: to create a geometric repeller to prevent repeating failed solutions. It includes a specific trigger condition (after a failed code fix or dead end), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remember' or 'forget' that handle positive or neutral memory operations.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: immediately after a code fix fails or the user declares an approach a dead end. It does not provide alternative tools or specify when not to use it, but the trigger condition is clear and context-specific enough to guide the agent.

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