Generates the owner-review artifact for a canonical item, bundling native variants, classified diffs, destination/account, and schedule so the owner can approve it.
The review artifact (SS3.2 tool 6): canonical item + every native variant + diffs + destination/account + schedule. This is the object the owner approves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| canonical_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the artifact's contents and approval purpose, but not whether the tool is read-only or mutating, what permissions are required, whether it creates a persistent artifact, or what invoking it changes.
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 compact and front-loads the artifact contents, but includes an opaque internal reference '(SS3.2 tool 6)' that does not help an agent. It is concise without being sufficiently action-oriented.
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, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should do more to explain what happens when the tool is called and what the return object represents. It names the artifact's components but leaves core invocation behavior incomplete.
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?
The schema has one required string parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain canonical_id beyond loosely referencing a 'canonical item.' The parameter name is somewhat intuitive, but no real meaning, format, or lookup behavior is added.
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 identifies the artifact and enumerates its contents, which is useful, but it never states the action the tool performs (retrieve, assemble, preview, etc.). It also does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like approval_check, approve_variant, or adaptation_diff.
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?
It says the object is what the owner approves, implying a review context, but gives no explicit guidance on when to call it versus approval_check, approve_variant, or content_get. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.