figure_library_plan_publish_working_revisionCreate a read-only lifecycle plan for publishing a working figure revision without changing files or pointers.
Create a read-only lifecycle plan. No files or pointers are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| templateId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It explicitly states 'No files or pointers are changed,' which is a clear disclosure of its non-destructive behavior. This aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, providing transparency about the tool's side effects.
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 exceptionally concise, using a single sentence to convey the core action and its key property. It is well-structured and to the point, with no unnecessary words.
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 description lacks sufficient context about what a lifecycle plan entails, what output to expect, or how it fits into the broader workflow. It does not explain the significance of the read-only nature or any typical use cases.
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 only parameter, templateId, is not described in the description. Its purpose, cardinality, and expected values are unexplained, leaving the user to infer its meaning from the schema alone.
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 creates a read-only lifecycle plan, which clearly indicates a planning action without side effects. However, it does not specify what kind of lifecycle plan (e.g., publishing a working revision) beyond the tool name, leaving some ambiguity about the specific purpose.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as before applying changes or as a dry-run. It does not mention any alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the user without context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.