blackboard_propose_inputPropose a new input or mutation for human-in-the-loop review, ensuring changes are approved before affecting shared state.
Submit a candidate mutation through the Human-In-The-Loop boundary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | lead_architect | |
| type | No | concept | |
| title | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| agent_name | Yes | ||
| justification | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides no information about side effects, required approvals, persistence, or any consequences of invoking the tool. It does not mention whether the submission is asynchronous, whether it triggers a review process, or what the output schema represents. Completely lacks behavioral transparency.
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 extremely concise (one sentence), but its brevity works against it. While not verbose, it lacks sufficient structure to convey essential information. The single clause 'Submit a candidate mutation through the Human-In-The-Loop boundary' does not front-load any practical details, making the conciseness counterproductive.
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?
Given the complexity of the schema (6 params, enums, output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It provides zero context about the intended workflow, how this tool fits with sibling tools, or what the input and output represent. The tool cannot be used effectively based on this description alone.
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 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning of any parameter (e.g., 'agent_name', 'title', 'content', etc.). An agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone, making it impossible to construct a correct invocation.
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 a clear action ('Submit') and object ('candidate mutation'), and hints at the context ('Human-In-The-Loop boundary'). However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'candidate mutation' or how it relates to the blackboard system, leaving ambiguity. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools like blackboard_add_item or blackboard_approve_proposal.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, preconditions, or scenarios are mentioned. The description is a single sentence with no usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer when to submit a proposal versus other blackboard operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.