mcp_engram_update

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 key behavioral traits: Lyapunov stability drift evaluation, CRS preservation or penalization based on drift, and creation of a thermodynamic record. This gives the agent deep insight into how the tool operates.

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 verbose but front-loaded with the critical 'CRITICAL' note and key guidance. It includes technical details like Lyapunov stability, which is necessary for understanding the tool's unique behavior. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence earns its place.

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 that there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the tool's behavior, including consequences of use (CRS preservation/penalization) and the underlying mechanism (thermodynamic record). It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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% for both parameters (`concept` and `new_text`). The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 the tool's purpose: 'update or append to an existing memory.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `mcp_engram_forget` and `mcp_engram_remember` by explaining why it should be used instead of forget+remember.

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?

Explicitly warns against using forget+remember to update, stating 'NEVER use forget+remember to update — that destroys the block's entire history.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with alternative actions specified.

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