mcp_engram_scrub_export

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the export process: PII scrub, semantic coherence check with threshold, optional derivative minting. It also describes output fields (packs, denied, failed_coherence, minted_derivatives). This is quite transparent for a complex tool.

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 highly concise and structured with BEHAVIOR, USAGE, OUTPUT sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the critical information is front-loaded. No redundant text.

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 complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers behavior, usage, and output well. It mentions sovereignty-gating but doesn't detail authentication. However, for a specialized tool, it is largely complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add much detail beyond the schema for individual parameters (e.g., explaining coherence_min or prefixes), but it gives overall process context. No significant added value beyond schema.

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 is a sovereignty-gated three-channel export for training corpus/central contribution, and explicitly distinguishes it from raw mcp_engram_export by warning never to use that tool in agent profile. The verb 'export' and resource 'leg_block_pack_v1' are specific, and the use case is well-defined.

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 USAGE label explicitly says 'Training corpus / central contribution' and provides a strong exclusion: 'never use raw mcp_engram_export in agent profile'. While it doesn't cover all alternative scenarios, this is clear guidance for the primary use case.

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