Atomically commits a validated semantic patch to a semantic store using revision CAS and an idempotency key, ensuring safe, repeatable updates without conflicting writes.
Atomically commit a validated semantic patch with revision CAS and idempotency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patch | Yes | ||
| source_run | Yes | ||
| preview_hash | Yes | ||
| semantic_store | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes | ||
| prepare_manifest | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose important behavior beyond the name: atomicity, revision CAS, and idempotency. Still, it does not explain what happens when CAS fails, how idempotency keys are scoped, or what permissions are required, leaving meaningful operational gaps.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every term (atomically, validated, CAS, idempotency) is substantive, and the key mutation behavior is stated immediately.
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?
This is a complex mutation with six required parameters, nested object input, and no annotations. The description gives useful high-level traits but omits prerequisites, parameter meanings, and failure behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the calling contract remains under-specified.
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% for six required parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only vaguely gestures at 'patch' and 'idempotency' and implies a revision through 'CAS,' but it never explains source_run, prepare_manifest, semantic_store, or preview_hash. The parameter semantics are insufficient for a correctly formed call.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'commit a validated semantic patch.' It adds meaningful qualifiers ('atomically,' 'revision CAS,' 'idempotency'), so an agent can tell it apart from read-only or preparation siblings. However, it does not explicitly name preview_semantic_patch or compile_semantic_revision as alternatives, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus preview_semantic_patch or other semantic-store operations. The word 'validated' implies a prerequisite but does not state what validation must occur first, nor does it describe when not to use the tool. Usage is only inferable from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.