Creates a typed decision pack from ID-only proposals and validates it locally, turning raw proposal IDs into a verified, policy-bound pack ready for review.
Create a typed pack from ID-only proposals and validate it locally.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proposer | Yes | ||
| policy_id | Yes | ||
| graph_path | Yes | ||
| operations | Yes | ||
| output_path | 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 behavioral burden. It mentions local validation, which is useful, but does not disclose side effects such as writing to output_path, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or what happens on validation failure.
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 wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves important gaps that are better scored under completeness.
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?
The tool has five required parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no schema descriptions. While an output schema exists to explain returns, the description does not provide enough input semantics or behavioral context for an agent to invoke this complex mutation correctly.
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?
All five required parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and two are nested objects. The description does not explain graph_path, policy_id, proposer, operations structure, or output_path, leaving the agent with essentially no semantic guidance beyond the parameter names.
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 names a specific verb (Create) and resource (typed pack) and says it validates locally. However, 'typed pack' and 'ID-only proposals' are vague, and it does not clearly distinguish the tool from the sibling validate_decision_pack.
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 instead of validate_decision_pack or other siblings. The only implied usage is that it creates a pack and validates it locally, with no prerequisites or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.