Prepares creation of a Plastic SCM/UVCS label on a changeset and returns a short-lived confirmation token for the confirm step.
Create a Plastic SCM / UVCS label on a changeset. Requires prepare/confirm. Returns a short-lived confirmation token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | Label name, for example UVCS_MCP_SMOKE_1. | |
| target | Yes | Changeset spec, for example cs:93. | |
| comment | No | Optional label comment. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that this is a prepare step returning a short-lived confirmation token, but it does not clarify token lifetime or explicitly state that the label is not created until confirm is called.
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, front-loaded with the operation and then the workflow constraint. It is efficient, though the first sentence could more precisely describe this as the prepare step rather than the overall create operation.
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 no output schema, and the description mentions only that a short-lived token is returned. It does not explain how that token should be used, how long it lasts, or what the confirm step expects, leaving meaningful workflow 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents label, target, and comment with examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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: create a Plastic SCM / UVCS label on a changeset. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this prepare tool from the sibling uvcs_label_create_confirm, beyond mentioning that prepare/confirm is required.
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 phrase 'Requires prepare/confirm' implies a two-step workflow, and the token return hints that a confirm step follows. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus uvcs_label_create_confirm or what to do with the token next.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.