Approve an exact asset version at a named review gate to advance Blender production stages without altering the version's bytes.
Approve an exact version at a named review gate without changing its bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gate | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| asset_id | Yes | ||
| reviewer | Yes | ||
| asset_type | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| project_root | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one non-obvious trait: promotion is byte-immutable metadata approval rather than a content mutation. However, it omits reversibility, permission/auth requirements, the meaning of the gate, and the idempotency implied by request_id.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every clause (approve, exact version, named gate, byte-immutability) earns 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?
This is a 8-parameter, 7-required mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, and an output schema that only relieves return-value explanation. The description is far too thin for that complexity — gate vocabulary, reviewer identity, and idempotency/rollback behavior all go unexplained.
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 all 8 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It loosely maps to 'version' and 'gate', yet gives no semantics for asset_type, asset_id, reviewer, request_id, project_root, or notes — an agent cannot tell formats or allowed values from either source.
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 names a specific verb (approve/promote) and resource (an exact version) plus the scoping concept (a named review gate). The phrase 'without changing its bytes' also distinguishes it from byte-mutating siblings like archive_version or retopologize_character. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as compare_asset_versions, archive_version, or validate_character. The scenario is only implied by 'at a named review gate'. No prerequisites (e.g. prior validation, permissions, ordering) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.