Skip a workflow task stage by recording a persisted attestation with reason, discussed-with, and actor role, bypassing the stage while keeping an auditable trail.
Skip a stage with a persisted attestation (reason, discussed-with, actor role).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| taskId | Yes | ||
| actorRole | Yes | ||
| discussedWith | No | ||
| expectedVersion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 a meaningful trait: the skip is recorded as a persisted attestation requiring a reason, a conversation partner, and an actor role, implying an auditable mutation. It does not say whether the skip is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the stage afterward.
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?
A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and scoped by its key behavioral trait. It is efficient, though arguably over-terse given the tool's complexity.
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?
For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this is materially incomplete. The agent learns the attestation fields but not what skipping does to the workflow, whether it is reversible, or how the version guard works.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names three of them (reason, discussedWith, actorRole) in parenthetical form, but leaves taskId and, more importantly, expectedVersion completely unexplained. The optimistic-concurrency semantics of expectedVersion are the highest-risk gap for correct invocation.
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 ("Skip") and resource ("a stage"), and adds that the skip carries a persisted attestation. However, the tool is named workflow_task_skip while the description talks about a "stage", and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as workflow_ticket_advance or workflow_complete_task, so an agent must infer the difference.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With 40+ sibling workflow tools, the agent gets no signal about when skipping is appropriate versus completing, advancing, or reporting a blocker.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.