figure_library_apply_review_gate_updateCommit a reviewed figure plan to a versioned library using idempotent operation IDs and stale-state checks, so only a verified plan matching the current template is published.
Apply the exact cached plan with operation-id idempotency and stale-state checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planDigest | Yes | ||
| operationId | Yes | ||
| expectedTemplateId | Yes | ||
| expectedSeriesDigest | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, and the description adds that idempotency is achieved via operation-id and that stale-state checks are performed. This provides useful context beyond the annotation but doesn't disclose error behavior or side effects on failure, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.
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, tight sentence that front-loads the core action ('Apply the exact cached plan') and packs in key behavioral details without wasted words. Excellent conciseness.
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?
With 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the plan does, the meaning of each parameter, and the result of applying it. It mentions only idempotency and stale-state checks, omitting the actual effect (applying a review gate decision) and any return behavior, making it incomplete for reliable 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%, and the description only implicitly hints at parameter roles (operation-id idempotency, stale-state checks). It does not explicitly explain planDigest, expectedTemplateId, or expectedSeriesDigest, so the agent must infer their meaning from property names and patterns, which is insufficient for a tool with 4 required params.
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 it applies an exact cached plan, which is a clear verb+resource, but it doesn't specifically mention 'review gate' or differentiate from the many sibling apply_* tools. It could be more specific by saying it applies a review gate update plan, but the name and context provide some clue.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other apply_* siblings. It doesn't say 'use this after planning a review gate update' or mention any prerequisites/alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.