engrim_add

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries a heavier burden. It adds the concrete behavior that records persist across sessions and are durable, which is helpful. It does not disclose side effects, overwrite semantics, permissions, or latency. Given the simple 'add' nature, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide direct usage guidance. There is no filler and every phrase 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?

For a 7-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description is short. It covers why (durability) and when (decision points, facts) but does not outline the fields, the exact semantics of type, or how the memory is structured. Enough for a rough call, but could be richer.

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 only 57% and the description adds minimal value beyond it. It hints at 'facts/feedback/state' which map to the type enum, but it does not clarify the roles of summary, tags, detail, global, project, or origin_agent. An agent would have to rely mostly on the bare schema descriptions.

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 verb ('Write') and the resource ('durable memory record') plus an explicit behavioral promise (persists across sessions). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like engrim_recall or engrim_context, which are about reading or retrieving, not writing.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use at real decision points and for durable facts/feedback/state.' This is useful contextual selection information. It does not name the sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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