Validate a client-produced change narration and stamp provenance.
Sibling of :func:`stamp_description` for the no-key ``narrate_change``
kit. Pass the JSON you produced plus the ``change_stats`` grid from the
kit so the stamped object carries the numbers the prose was grounded in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | GEC | |
| model | No | ||
| reading | Yes | ||
| item_ids | No | ||
| change_stats | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true is already declared, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that the tool validates and that the stamped object retains the grounding numbers. It does not say what happens when validation fails, or clarify that 'stamping' produces a returned object rather than persisting state — a genuine ambiguity given the word 'stamp'. Not a contradiction of the annotation, but an unresolved tension.
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?
Short enough, but front-loading is weakened by embedded reStructuredText markup (':func:`stamp_description`') that adds noise rather than meaning for an agent reader. The second sentence carries the useful operational detail; the first is fine.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description correctly identifies the input pairing. But for a five-parameter validation tool with zero schema coverage and a subtle read-only-versus-stamp question, it leaves too much unstated: extra parameters, validation failure mode, and what 'provenance' is attached to.
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 0%, so the description must carry all five parameters, and it only speaks to two: the 'reading' JSON and 'change_stats'. asset, model, and item_ids go entirely unmentioned in both schema and prose, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and defaults.
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 pair of verbs (validate, stamp provenance) against a specific resource (client-produced change narration), and names its sibling stamp_description so the agent can distinguish it. Not quite a 5 because 'stamp provenance' alone doesn't tell the agent what the output object looks like without help from the annotation/schema.
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?
Places the tool clearly in a workflow: it consumes output from the no-key narrate_change kit and must be fed the JSON produced plus the change_stats grid. That is a real usage condition, not just an implied one. No explicit when-not or failure-path guidance, so it stops 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.