Move guardrails through lifecycle stages from suggested to accepted, shadow, active_monitor, or rejected to manage their rollout and monitoring.
Promote a guardrail to a new lifecycle status: suggested → accepted → shadow → active_monitor → rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| to | 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 non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the lifecycle chain but nothing about side effects, validation of transitions, or reversibility. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds only marginal context beyond them.
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, tight sentence that states the action, resource, and the exact state machine. No filler, front-loaded with the purpose.
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?
Adequate for a simple two-parameter mutation, but it lacks any mention of the return value, potential errors, or how it relates to the update tool. The description doesn't clarify whether any transition is allowed or only forward ones, which is relevant to usage.
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 for the parameters. It neither explains that 'id' identifies the guardrail nor that 'to' is the target lifecycle status beyond the enum values already present. The description gives no additional meaning or usage detail for the parameters.
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 'Promote' and resource 'guardrail', and enumerates the exact lifecycle sequence. Clearly distinct from sibling guardrail tools (list, get, create, update).
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 lifecycle arrow implies a forward promotion path, but the description doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool instead of guardrail_update, nor when it is inappropriate. No alternative tools are named, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.