figure_library_apply_working_revisionReverify source bytes and apply a cached working revision with operation-id idempotency and stale-state checks.
Reverify source bytes and apply the exact cached plan with operation-id idempotency and stale-state checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planDigest | Yes | ||
| operationId | Yes | ||
| expectedAction | 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 readOnlyHint=false. The description adds beyond that by disclosing 'Reverify source bytes' and 'stale-state checks', which describe preconditions and safety behaviors not captured in annotations.
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 entire description is one compact sentence that packs the core behavior without filler. The title is also concise and aligned.
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 moderate complexity with 5 required params and no output schema. The description covers reverification, idempotency, and stale-state checks, but omits details on stale-state error triggers, the role of expectedAction enum, and return/error behavior.
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?
The schema has 5 required parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions). The description adds semantics by linking 'operation-id' to idempotency, 'cached plan' to planDigest, and 'stale-state checks' to expected fields, but it does not explain each parameter's exact purpose or interaction.
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 clearly states the specific verb ('apply') and resource ('exact cached plan' for working revision), and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'reverify source bytes' and 'stale-state checks', which are unique to this apply operation.
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 description implies this is the apply step for a confirmed plan ('apply the exact cached plan'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use it over other apply_* tools such as apply_publish_working_revision. Usage context is clear but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.