Persist a card answer locally, then notify the conversation. Repeated identical submissions are ignored.
Persist a card answer locally before notifying the conversation. Repeated identical submissions are idempotent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answers | Yes | ||
| decisionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0-beta.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses idempotency and a persistence action, but omits error handling, permissions, or side effects beyond notification.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words, main purpose front-loaded. Efficient and to the point.
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?
Given nested parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential detail on parameter formats, examples, or return behavior. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call from the description alone.
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 has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of decisionId or the answers array structure. The nested picks array and custom field are entirely unexplained, leaving an agent to guess valid inputs.
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 (persist) and resource (card answer), and mentions the ordering with notification. Distinguishes from sibling read_answer by implying write vs read, though 'card answer' is somewhat domain-specific.
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?
Implicitly describes a workflow (persist before notifying) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like read_answer or ask. No explicit alternatives or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.