mcp_engram_thought_tile_write_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects ('Triggers momentum + ki_hijacker refresh'), but does not cover error conditions, idempotency, or permission requirements. Adequate but not highly transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value. No fluff, action-oriented first sentence, and a suggestion for additional use. Perfectly concise.

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?

For a write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and side effects. It lacks info on return value (e.g., success/failure indication) but is otherwise sufficient for an AI to understand usage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. It does not elaborate on formats or constraints.

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 the action ('Write result/update data') and the resource ('existing Thought Tile'). It distinguishes from siblings like create and create_visualization tools by specifying it's an update operation on existing tiles.

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 gives context by mentioning it's useful after state changes in specific tile types (Research Offload, State Machine, Tabular). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives.

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