codapult_guard_proposal_decideApprove or reject evidence-backed proposals to control Guard state, preventing stale proposals from activation.
Approve or reject current evidence-backed proposals; stale proposals cannot be activated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| root | No | Project path or workspace root. | |
| confirm | No | Required before changing Guard state. | |
| decision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one important constraint (stale proposals cannot be activated), but omits state-change effects, the need for confirmation before changing Guard state, reversibility, and error behavior for a mutation tool.
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 tightly written sentence with the core action and the key staleness constraint front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.
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 mutation tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves out confirmation requirements, state-change semantics, permission expectations, and what happens after approval or rejection.
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 only 50%, so the description should compensate. It implies that ids refer to proposals and that decision is approve/reject, but it says nothing about the confirm parameter, root scoping, or the format of ids beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 states a clear verb pair (approve/reject) and resource (current evidence-backed proposals), and adds a validity constraint (stale proposals cannot be activated). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like codapult_guard_propose or codapult_guard_review, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to identify the action.
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?
Usage is implied: this tool applies decisions to current proposals, and stale ones are excluded. However, the description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as review, verify, or propose, nor does it list prerequisites like confirmation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.