Validate and persist a worker's output to advance or retry the pipeline stage. Ensures isolated execution and loop control.
Submit exactly one isolated worker output. Validate and persist it, then advance or retry the expected stage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output | Yes | ||
| run_id | Yes | ||
| dispatch_id | Yes | ||
| execution_id | Yes | ||
| fresh_context | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the side-effect chain: the output is validated, persisted, and then the expected stage is advanced or retried. It does not say what happens on validation failure or what permissions are required, so it is not exhaustive.
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 sentences with no filler; the core action and the resulting state transition are front-loaded. Every clause carries information.
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 five-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the write effect but leaves the three opaque identifiers and fresh_context unexplained, and does not point to the pipeline_status/prompt_pipeline calls that presumably produce run_id and dispatch_id. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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% across five required parameters, and the schema supplies only types and UUID formats. The description touches only the 'output' parameter ('isolated worker output') and says nothing about run_id, dispatch_id, execution_id, or fresh_context, nor where those identifiers come from. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('submit... worker output') plus a scope constraint ('exactly one isolated'). An agent can distinguish it from prompt_pipeline and pipeline_status without opening a schema, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 phrase 'submit exactly one isolated worker output' implies the usage context (one worker result per call) and the pipeline context, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or reference to alternatives like pipeline_status or prompt_pipeline. Usage is only inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.