Accept an airline schedule change using an approval token. Without the token, this action only proposes the acceptance, enabling explicit human approval before finalizing.
Accept the airline's schedule change. Without approval_token this only proposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| change_id | Yes | ||
| approval_token | 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?
Annotations already flag destructive and non-idempotent behavior, so the description adds genuine value by disclosing the dual-mode behavior: calling without approval_token only proposes rather than accepting. It doesn't detail other side effects, but the key behavioral twist is captured.
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; the main action is front-loaded and the conditional is a single clear clause. Every word earns its place with no filler.
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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be strengthened by naming request_approval as the source of the token, but nothing critical is missing.
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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that approval_token determines whether the call proposes or accepts, but change_id is left to inference from the tool name, with no format or source explained.
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 the action clearly: 'Accept the airline's schedule change.' The resource is unambiguous and distinct from general order change tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not.
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 conditional 'Without approval_token this only proposes' gives useful context, but the description doesn't state when to prefer this over siblings like confirm_order_change or quote_order_change. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.