Record the outcome of an inspected operation to unblock subsequent edits after Fusion has finished. Use after verifying effects; this does not cancel or undo changes.
After inspecting/recovering uncertain effects, record the outcome and unblock later edits.
This neither cancels execution nor undoes changes. Verify that Fusion has finished first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resolution | Yes | ||
| operation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to rely on, the description usefully discloses that the tool neither cancels execution nor undoes changes, and that it unblocks later edits. It also states a precondition (verify Fusion finished). This adds real behavioral context beyond the tool name.
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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes useful information. The second paragraph clarifies boundaries and prerequisites without padding.
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?
The description covers the action, timing, and non-destructive nature, which is decent for a simple acknowledgement tool. However, it omits parameter value guidance and any mention of return behavior or error cases, so the agent is left guessing about how to invoke it correctly.
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 provides no parameter descriptions and the tool description does not explain what 'resolution' should contain or how 'operation_id' should be obtained. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.
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 ('record the outcome') and a clear resource ('uncertain effects' / operation acknowledgement), and explains the effect ('unblock later edits'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from, so it loses one point.
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 gives clear timing guidance: use after inspecting/recovering uncertain effects, and only after verifying Fusion has finished. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it is not a fully explicit distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.