mcp_engram_set_namespace

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 automatic namespace creation and a success message output, but does not explain side effects on existing memories or permission requirements. For a simple switch tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 concise lines with labeled sections (BEHAVIOR, USAGE, OUTPUT). It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage timing, and output. It does not explain jargon like 'geometric context' or 'stalk', but this is likely domain-specific. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

The sole parameter 'namespace' has a clear schema description with examples. The description adds context that the namespace is project-specific and created if missing, but does not provide additional format or constraints beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a 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 states that the tool switches the active geometric context to a project-specific namespace and automatically creates it if missing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_namespaces (listing) and remember (adding memories without switching context).

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 says to call this at the start of a session or when switching contexts, providing a clear use case. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for selecting this tool over siblings.

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