Simulates an itinerary change proposal to detect version conflicts, schedule overlaps, locked items, and constraint violations before approval.
Simulate and validate a proposal against version conflicts, schedule overlaps, locked/fixed items, and supported constraints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proposal_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'simulate' usefully signals that this is a non-applying validation rather than an actual change, but side effects, return format, and error behavior are not mentioned.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the action and specific validation targets. Every word contributes purpose and scope; there is no redundant or filler content.
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?
Given the simple single-parameter interface and lack of output schema, the description gives the essential call intent but omits what the validation result looks like and whether the proposal must already exist. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete for autonomous invocation.
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. The phrase 'a proposal' identifies proposal_id as the target object to validate, providing minimal semantic grounding. However, no additional meaning is given about the expected proposal state or how the ID relates to the validation process beyond the schema's UUID format.
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 uses specific verbs 'Simulate and validate' with a clear resource ('a proposal') and enumerates the exact validation dimensions: version conflicts, schedule overlaps, locked/fixed items, and supported constraints. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling operations like create_change_proposal, get_change_proposal, and apply_change_proposal.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives named. The words 'simulate and validate' imply this is a pre-apply dry-run, but the intended placement in the workflow is left to the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.