Register an immutable code identity with explicit parent references and no path reads or executions, ensuring traceable provenance in research workflows.
Register an immutable code identity and explicit parent references; never reads or runs the path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| record | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| requestId | Yes | ||
| expectedRevision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-read, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuine value by asserting the record is immutable and that the path is never read or executed. However, it omits the concurrency contract implied by expectedRevision and how requestId provides idempotency, which an agent needs to call this safely.
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 tight sentence with the key constraint front-loaded, which is good. But at this level of schema complexity the brevity crosses into under-specification; a second sentence on revision/idempotency semantics would earn 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?
A deeply nested schema with a conditional if/then branch, four required top-level params, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions demand far more explanation than one sentence. An agent cannot infer from this description what record must contain or what expectedRevision does.
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 carries the full burden — and it explains none of the four required parameters. requestId, expectedRevision, and the conditional record shape (specRef triggering required entrypoint/modulePath/repository/commit/capabilities/checkEvidence) are completely undocumented in prose.
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 verb+resource ('Register an immutable code identity') and adds a scoping clause about parent references. It is distinguishable from the read-side sibling rws_code_find, though the phrase 'code identity' is somewhat internal jargon.
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 clause 'never reads or runs the path' implicitly separates this from discovery tools like rws_code_find, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing revision to target), and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.