approve_artifact_versionApprove a pending artifact version to promote it to current. The action is idempotent, so repeating the decision has no additional effect.
Approve one pending immutable artifact version and make it current. Repeating the same decision is idempotent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms idempotency and adds the effect 'make it current', which is a key behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, side effects on the previous current version are not 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 concise with two short, front-loaded sentences. No word wasted. However, the second sentence could be integrated with the first for even tighter structure. Still, it 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?
Given the tool is a simple mutation with few parameters and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is minimally adequate. But it lacks context about what 'request_id' refers to, how to obtain it, and how this tool relates to the approval workflow (e.g., listing requests first). The absence of output schema increases the need for this 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 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters. It does not mention 'request_id' (the required UUID for the approval request) or the optional 'note'. The agent receives no guidance on what these parameters represent or how to populate them.
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 it approves a 'pending immutable artifact version' and 'makes it current', using specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling 'approve_version' by specifying the artifact type and immutability.
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 implies the version must be pending, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling 'approve_version' or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned. Usage guidance is minimal and left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.