Waive transcript refinement for a podcast project by recording the required reason, so skipped refinement steps remain documented and auditable.
Waive transcript refinement 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that a reason is recorded; it omits permissions, reversibility, side effects on the refinement state, and any relationship to the status/done tools.
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 filler. It is concise, though arguably under-sized for a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations.
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 the description still omits usage conditions, parameter details, and the behavioral effect of waiving. For a mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, this is incomplete.
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% across two parameters. The description only alludes to the required reason parameter ('recorded reason') and does not mention project_path at all, leaving its meaning and format unexplained.
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 and resource: 'waive transcript refinement'. It also notes that a reason is recorded. It does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as transcript_refine_done_tool, transcript_refine_status_tool, or align_waive_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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. An agent cannot tell from the description when waiving refinement is appropriate versus completing it with transcript_refine_done_tool or checking status with transcript_refine_status_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.