editorial_findings_appendPersist one evidence-backed observation. A nothing_useful outcome may cover only what the cited evidence actually inspected; sparse stills do not certify an unsampled interval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| runId | Yes | runId (path). | |
| commandId | No | Retry identity. A call repeated with the same commandId returns the first result instead of acting twice. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $defsAdded value: +{
+ "__schema0": {
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "__schema1": {
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "__schema2": {
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "__schema3": {
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+}Input schema / properties / body / properties / evidenceIds / items / $refAdded value: +"#/$defs/__schema2"Input schema / properties / body / properties / evidenceIds / items / maxLengthRemoved value: -128Input schema / properties / body / properties / evidenceIds / items / minLengthRemoved value: -1Input schema / properties / body / properties / evidenceIds / items / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / properties / body / properties / range / properties / frames / prefixItemsPrevious value: -[
- {
- "maximum": 9007199254740991,
- "minimum": 0,
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "maximum": 9007199254740991,
- "minimum": 0,
- "type": "integer"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/__schema0"
+ },
+ {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/__schema1"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / commandId / $refAdded value: +"#/$defs/__schema3"Input schema / properties / commandId / maxLengthRemoved value: -128Input schema / properties / commandId / minLengthRemoved value: -1Input schema / properties / commandId / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / properties / commandIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Retry identity. A call repeated with the same commandId returns the first result instead of acting twice.",
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose the write/non-destructive/non-idempotent safety profile, so the description's main added value is the evidence-coverage caveat: nothing_useful may only cover inspected evidence and sparse stills do not certify unsampled intervals. That is useful domain behavior beyond annotations, though it does not cover return behavior.
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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and a relevant caveat second. 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?
The nested schema and examples supply most structural detail, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, with no output schema, the description does not explain what append returns or how findings relate to the run and evidence beyond the one outcome caveat.
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 67%, with top-level descriptions for runId and commandId and a detailed nested body schema with examples. The description adds meaning to outcome/evidenceIds via the evidence-backed and nothing_useful caveat, but leaves range, timebase, and other nested fields to the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: "Persist one evidence-backed observation." It is clear this appends a finding, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like editorial_findings_list or editorial_integrate.
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 second sentence gives a rule for when a nothing_useful outcome is valid, which implies usage after inspecting cited evidence. However, it does not state when to use this instead of alternatives or mention prerequisites such as existing evidence/run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.