Check native protected slot conflicts for a prepared asset update candidate before publishing. Provide asset and candidate request IDs to catch issues early.
Read native protected slot conflicts before publishing a completed prepared candidate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | ||
| candidate_request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions reading conflicts but doesn't state whether it's read-only, whether it modifies state, what permissions are needed, or what happens on conflict. For a tool in an asset publication workflow, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
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?
A single sentence, appropriately sized, but the phrasing is dense and jargon-laden ('native protected slot conflicts', 'completed prepared candidate'), which reduces clarity. It is concise but not well-structured for comprehension.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and two required parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the return value, the parameters, or the tool's behavior in any meaningful way.
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 does not mention either parameter (asset_id, candidate_request_id). It provides no semantic meaning for the parameters, leaving the agent to infer their purpose entirely from their names.
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 uses vague, jargon-heavy phrasing ('Read native protected slot conflicts before publishing a completed prepared candidate') that restates internal terminology rather than stating a clear verb+resource. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like publish_prepared or protect_asset, which are in the same workflow. An agent would struggle to understand exactly what this tool does.
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 phrase 'before publishing' implies a pre-publish timing, which is a hint, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs alternatives like publish_prepared or protect_asset. No conditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.