mcp_engram_tensor_upsert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects like auto-relating to primary and optional hot promotion, but omits details on idempotency, conflict behavior, permissions, or error conditions. Some transparency is present but incomplete.

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 relatively concise at three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. However, the jargon reduces clarity per word. Could benefit from plainer language but achieves efficiency.

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?

The description covers the main operations (create/update, bonds, automatic namespace), but lacks explanation of the geometric model, the meaning of '8192D unit q + momentum p', and how bonds and auto-relate interact. Without an output schema, an agent may face uncertainties. Adequate for an MVP but not fully 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 coverage is 100%, and the description's parameter details mirror the schema exactly (e.g., 'Self-contained text encoded into geometric block' for 'text'). No additional meaning is added beyond the schema, so the 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 states that the tool creates or updates a persistent geometric entry with optional dynamic bonds, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_engram_remember or mcp_engram_relate. However, heavy jargon (e.g., '8192D unit q + momentum p in .leg3', 'OP_BIND ZEDOS_RELATION edges') reduces accessibility.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mcp_engram_remember or mcp_engram_relate. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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