Saves authored project files and sample data using the revision from project_read, validating Framework rules before writing and rejecting credentials so updates stay safe and repeatable.
Save authored files/sample data using the revision from project_read. Validates selected Framework rules. Project files must never contain credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| files | No | ||
| sample | No | ||
| expectedRevision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuinely valuable traits: Framework rule validation and a hard constraint that project files must never contain credentials. It omits important mutation behavior though — whether the supplied files replace or merge with existing files, and what happens on a revision mismatch.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler. The core action and its dependency are front-loaded, followed by validation behavior and then the hard credential constraint.
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?
Annotations cover the safety profile, but this is a mutation tool with four undocumented parameters, two nested objects, and no output schema. The description should describe what a successful save returns (e.g., new revision) and conflict behavior; those gaps matter for correct invocation of a revision-guarded write.
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 carries the burden and it only partially delivers. It maps loosely to three of four parameters (files, sample, expectedRevision via "revision from project_read"), but the identifier parameter is never mentioned, and there is no detail on the nested files object (max 10 properties, string values) or the free-form sample object.
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 and resource ("Save authored files/sample data") and ties it to a prior step ("using the revision from project_read"). An agent can distinguish it from read-only siblings like trmnl_project_read or trmnl_project_validate, though the description never explicitly contrasts it with trmnl_project_create or trmnl_pipeline_save.
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?
"using the revision from project_read" implies a read-then-save workflow, which is useful sequencing guidance. However, it does not say when to choose this over trmnl_project_validate, trmnl_pipeline_save, or trmnl_project_deploy, and gives no exclusions or failure guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.