figure_library_plan_review_gate_updateGenerate a read-only lifecycle plan for review gate updates, showing resolved or reopened gates without modifying files or pointers.
Create a read-only lifecycle plan. No files or pointers are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decisions | Yes | ||
| templateId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation contradiction: readOnlyHint=true but the description says 'Create,' implying a state change. The phrase 'No files or pointers are changed' aligns with read-only, but the 'create' wording directly contradicts the annotation's safety profile.
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 sentence, but it is under-specified and contradictory. It is not appropriately concise because it omits essential information and uses misleading terminology.
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 tool with two parameters, one of which is a nested array, and no output schema, the description should explain the purpose, parameters, and behavioral implications. It only offers a vague and misleading phrase, leaving the agent without adequate context.
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 provides no information about 'templateId' or 'decisions.' The tool description does not compensate at all for the lack of parameter explanations in the schema.
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 tool name indicates it updates plan review gate decisions, but the description says 'Create a read-only lifecycle plan,' which is a different verb and resource. This is vague and potentially misleading, failing to clearly state the actual action of updating decisions.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many plan-related tools, but the description does not mention any exclusions, comparisons, or specific contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.