Update a divergence's status to open, accepted, dismissed, or converted_to_monitor using its ID. Resolve or manage divergences in Invariance.
Transition a divergence status: open | accepted | dismissed | converted_to_monitor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add nuance. The word 'transition' correctly implies a state-machine operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether transitions are validated, idempotent, or have 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core action and the accepted status values, making it appropriately concise.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an enum, the description is nearly sufficient, but it omits key operational details such as allowed transition paths and the meaning of the id parameter. Without an output schema, there is also no mention of what the tool returns, leaving some context incomplete.
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%, so the description must compensate. It lists the possible status values but provides no meaning for the 'id' parameter, no explanation of the statuses, and no guidance on which transitions are permitted. This is minimal compensation for a fully undocumented schema.
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 clearly identifies the action as a status transition on a divergence, and lists the target statuses. It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools like invariance_divergence_get/list through the explicit 'transition' verb, though it doesn't define what a divergence is or which transitions are valid.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the verb 'transition' and the sibling list/get tools suggest it is for changing a divergence's status versus reading it. There is no direct statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.