Submit a proposed foundation revision for human review without applying it, so changes can be inspected and approved before they affect the project.
Save a proposed foundation revision for human review; this does not apply it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| requestId | Yes | ||
| sourceRefs | No | ||
| baseRevision | 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 cover the safety profile: non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral distinction that the revision is only saved for review and is not applied, though it omits concurrency and validation behavior.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the key distinction from apply is included. Its extreme brevity is efficient, though it leaves important detail to the schema.
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?
For a mutation tool with 6 required parameters, a nested fields object, and no output schema, this one sentence is not complete enough. It does not explain revision conflict handling, what fields may be proposed, why `reason` is required, or how `sourceRefs` are used.
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% across 7 parameters, including nested `fields`, required `reason`, and concurrency fields `baseRevision`/`expectedRevision`. The description provides no parameter-specific meaning at all.
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 pair: save a proposed foundation revision. The phrase 'for human review; this does not apply it' distinguishes the proposal step from application and gives an agent a clear workflow role.
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 indicates when to use it: saving a proposal for human review, and explicitly says it does not apply the revision, implicitly directing application to `rws_overview_apply`. It does not spell out exclusions or prerequisites beyond that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.