Marks the conversation-clock alignment acceptance gate as complete for a podcast multitrack project. Use it to finalize alignment review and attach optional notes.
Mark the conversation-clock alignment acceptance gate done, with optional notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries full burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond 'optional notes': no side effects, no idempotency, no prerequisites, no indication of what state the alignment gate transitions to or whether the action is reversible. For a state-mutating gate action this is a significant gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations, undocumented project_path, and a crowded alignment-oriented sibling set, the description leaves too much unspecified for confident invocation.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints that notes is optional; it says nothing about what notes are used for or what project_path does, despite project_path being the parameter that likely determines which session/project the gate applies to.
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 ('Mark ... done') and a specific resource ('conversation-clock alignment acceptance gate'), which is more precise than the bare name. It implicitly distinguishes from align_waive_tool by framing this as acceptance rather than waiver, but never names or contrasts a sibling 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?
No when-to-use guidance. It is unclear whether this is called after align_brief_tool/align_status_tool report readiness, or whether it can be called at any time, and no mention of align_waive_tool as the alternative path. The workflow position must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.