Analyze project audio diagnostics and propose pipeline parameter patches to resolve production issues. Optionally apply the recommended changes directly.
Heuristic Analyze: propose pipeline param patches from audio diagnostics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apply | No | ||
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says 'propose' but the schema exposes an 'apply' boolean, and the description never states that setting apply=true may mutate pipeline configuration. That is a significant omitted side effect.
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?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded: one sentence communicates the core action. The main cost is minor redundancy in 'Heuristic Analyze', which partially restates the tool name, but there is 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?
With no annotations, a side-effecting apply flag, a required project_path, and no parameter explanation, the description is not enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. The output schema helps with return values but not with parameter semantics or side effects.
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%, and the description does not mention project_path or apply at all. The phrase 'from audio diagnostics' hints at input but does not map to either parameter, so the agent gets no additional parameter understanding.
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 verb ('propose'), a resource ('pipeline param patches'), and a source ('audio diagnostics'), which makes its purpose reasonably clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from pipeline_run and pipeline_set_config_tool, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives.
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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as pipeline_set_config_tool or audio_diagnostics_tool. 'From audio diagnostics' weakly implies a prior step, but the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.