Save a maintenance plan for later approval without key access, signing, or node changes. Provide a period to simulate block producer workflows safely.
Persist an inert rotation plan. No key access, signing or node changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'No key access, signing or node changes' and 'inert' clarify that while it persists something, it does not perform other rotation actions. This is valuable given that readOnlyHint and destructiveHint are both false.
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 two tight sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the clarification about what it does not do is placed immediately after, with no unnecessary wording.
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?
Although the tool has low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description does not explain what 'period' means or what a successful call returns. It also omits behavior on repeated calls (overwrite vs. create), leaving the agent with significant gaps for safe invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the 'period' parameter but does not. It does not explain the unit, meaning, or effect of period for an inert rotation plan, leaving the agent to guess.
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 a specific verb ('Persist') and resource ('inert rotation plan'), and explicitly says it does not perform key access, signing, or node changes. This differentiates it from siblings like rotation_execute and rotation_status.
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 conveys that this is for saving an inert plan and not for executing changes, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative like rotation_execute or state when to prefer it over that sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.