Waive the alignment acceptance gate by recording a reason, allowing podcast projects to continue when alignment is not accepted.
Waive the alignment acceptance gate with a recorded reason.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| 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 / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "reason"
-]New value: +[
+ "reason"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, yet it does not say whether waiving is irreversible, what downstream state it changes, or what preconditions/permissions apply. 'With a recorded reason' hints at audit logging but stops there.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is well-sized for the amount of information it actually conveys.
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 gate-bypass operation with no annotations, undocumented parameters, and only a bare mention of an output schema, the description leaves the agent without enough context to invoke it safely or understand consequences.
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% and the optional project_path parameter is entirely undocumented. The phrase 'recorded reason' loosely signals the required reason field but adds no format, length, or validation guidance.
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 (waive) and resource (the alignment acceptance gate), which distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like align_done_tool and align_status_tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself against those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Implies a use case (bypassing the alignment gate when it cannot be satisfied) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites such as checking align_status_tool first. The alternative of resolving alignment properly via align_done_tool is never named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.