Apply patch operations to a Hakowan spec, returning a spec_id for later use; include the updated spec JSON only when requested.
Apply patches and return a spec_id; include JSON only on request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | Yes | ||
| strict | No | ||
| backend | No | webgl | |
| semantic | No | ||
| operations | Yes | ||
| include_spec | No | ||
| data_bindings | No |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing the return value (spec_id) and constraining response format ('include JSON only on request'), without contradicting any annotation.
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 very concise with two tight clauses and no filler. It front-loads the action and output, earning its place, though the brevity contributes to semantic gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Even with an output schema present, the description is incomplete for a tool with seven parameters and no schema descriptions. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and any explanation of what 'patches' means, leaving too much to inference.
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%, and the description fails to define any of the seven parameters, including the required 'spec' and 'operations'. It only vaguely references 'patches', leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings entirely from bare schema titles and types.
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 ('Apply patches') and an output ('return a spec_id'), which conveys the core function and distinguishes it from siblings like get_spec or compile_spec. However, it does not explicitly state that patches are applied to a spec, leaving a slight ambiguity about the target resource.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compile_spec or evaluate_visual_patch. The only additional instruction ('include JSON only on request') is about response formatting, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.