mcp_engram_var_declare

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 mentions returning metadata and previews but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or constraints. The jargon ('provlog', 'geometry_ref') adds ambiguity.

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 short (two sentences) but uses domain-specific jargon ('LinguisticDiscourseBundle', 'context_bundle_v1') that may confuse agents. Adequate brevity but at the cost of clarity.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is insufficient. It provides a high-level purpose but omits details on parameters, return values, and usage context.

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 only 29% (only 'name' and 'prefixes' have descriptions). The description adds no detail about parameters like 'concepts', 'limit', 'min_crs', or 'preview_chars'. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Declare') and resource ('context variable handle'), and mentions the tool binds concepts and returns metadata. However, it does not clearly differentiate this from sibling tools like mcp_engram_var_project or mcp_engram_var_query.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among 60+ sibling tools, there is no indication of its specific role or prerequisites.

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