figure_library_plan_adopt_versioningGenerate a read-only plan to adopt versioning for a figure template, showing lifecycle steps without changing files or pointers.
Create a read-only lifecycle plan. No files or pointers are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| templateId | Yes | ||
| canonicalImplementationAssetPath | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description's 'No files or pointers are changed' reinforces but does not extend beyond them. It does not add details about the plan's output or persistence, though no contradiction exists.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences convey the essential information with no wasted words. Every phrase earns its place for a simple read-only plan tool.
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 plan/apply tool with no output schema, the description should at least mention what the plan contains or that apply_adopt_versioning executes it; it does neither. Parameter semantics are also uncovered, leaving the description incomplete for confident 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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain templateId and canonicalImplementationAssetPath but says nothing about parameters. The schema's names and constraints are the only semantics available, leaving the agent to guess their roles.
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 opens with 'Create a read-only lifecycle plan', a specific verb and resource, and 'No files or pointers are changed' clearly separates it from the apply_* siblings. The title adds 'flat-v1 adoption' context, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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 read-only phrasing implies this is the planning stage for adopt_versioning, and the sibling list contains apply_adopt_versioning, but the description never explicitly names the apply counterpart or states when to choose this tool over alternatives. It provides no exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.