Auto-apply filler-word and pause-based REMOVE/MUTE decisions to podcast projects, bypassing edits marked for review.
Auto-apply non-review REMOVE/MUTE decisions whose reason starts filler: or pause:.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Auto-apply' implies a mutation but it does not disclose reversibility (a revert_applied_edit_tool sibling exists), what happens to decisions that are not auto-appliable, whether it is idempotent, or whether project scope defaults to the active project.
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 compact sentence with the filter condition front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.
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, no parameter documentation, and no workflow context the description is too thin. The agent cannot determine scope, safety, or how this fits relative to approve/reject/apply-plan siblings.
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?
There is one parameter, project_path, with no schema description (0% coverage) and an unspecified default of null. The description says nothing about it, leaving the agent unable to tell whether omitting it targets the current project or is an error.
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 names a specific action (auto-apply) and a precise subset of targets (non-review REMOVE/MUTE decisions with reasons prefixed filler: or pause:), which is more specific than a bare 'apply edits'. However, the domain terms 'decision', 'review', and the REMOVE/MUTE taxonomy are undefined, and it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as approve_edits_tool, apply_edit_plan_tool, or apply_suggested_actions_tool.
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 reason-prefix filter is a selection criterion, not usage guidance; the description never says when to run this versus approve_edits_tool or apply_edit_plan_tool, nor what prerequisites (e.g., proposals existing) must hold. No exclusions or workflow position are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.