Prepare document changes based on your instructions, using a conservative editing approach. Set quality and reasoning effort, then run the prepared task to apply edits.
Prepare conservative document editing; execution requires run_prepared_task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quality | No | balanced | |
| document | Yes | ||
| instructions | Yes | ||
| reasoning_effort | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important trait: this tool only prepares the editing task and does not execute it, requiring a follow-up call to run_prepared_task. It does not describe side effects, reversibility, or whether approval is needed, but the core non-executing behavior is disclosed.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the dependency on run_prepared_task is added in a compact second clause. It is appropriately concise, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for the parameter and usage details the tool likely needs.
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 the described prepare-then-execute workflow and a 4-parameter schema with no param descriptions, the definition is incomplete. It identifies the required next step but omits parameter guidance, when to use this tool vs generic preparation, and any mention of approval or pipeline steps. The output schema helps but cannot compensate for absent usage and parameter semantics.
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%, and the description adds no explicit parameter meaning. It does not mention document, instructions, quality, or reasoning_effort, and 'conservative' is not clearly mapped to any schema property. The description fails to compensate for the low schema 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?
The description states a specific action ('Prepare') applied to a resource ('conservative document editing'), and clarifies it does not perform the edit itself by requiring run_prepared_task. This is more specific than a vague phrase, but 'conservative document editing' remains slightly abstract because it does not say what artifact is produced.
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 description provides clear workflow guidance: execution requires run_prepared_task, so the agent knows this tool is a preparation step. However, it does not explain when to choose edit_document over alternatives like prepare_task, nor does it state when this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.