Append revision-, hash-, and environment-bound evidence to a delivery work item to make QA and release decisions traceable to exact sources.
Append evidence tied to the current revision, hash, and environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| outcome | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| environment | Yes | ||
| recorded_by | Yes | ||
| source_hash | Yes | ||
| work_item_id | Yes | ||
| expected_revision | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Append' hints at append-only/immutable semantics and 'current revision' hints at optimistic-concurrency checking, but the description never states what happens on a revision mismatch, whether the record is mutable, permission requirements, or side effects.
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 no filler, and the key scoping constraints (revision, hash, environment) come first. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for an 8-required-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description omits too much to let an agent invoke it confidently.
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 8 required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at three of them (revision, hash, environment) and leaves kind, outcome, summary, recorded_by, and work_item_id completely undefined, adding little semantic value.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Append evidence') scoped by revision, hash, and environment, so an agent can grasp the core operation. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling record_release_decision, which is a similar append-style recording operation.
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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives like record_release_decision or update_work_item, and no prerequisites or caveats are stated. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.