Append a hash-linked, metadata-only artifact phase to a work contract, capturing producer, references, and checks.
Append one hash-linked, metadata-only artifact phase to a Work Contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phase | Yes | ||
| work_id | Yes | ||
| producer | Yes | ||
| refs_json | Yes | ||
| checks_json | No | [] | |
| previous_digest | No |
| 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?
Annotations are minimal (only a title), so description carries burden. It discloses that it's a metadata-only append and hash-linked, implying immutability and immutability, but does not detail side effects, permission requirements, or the nature of the hash-linking. This is useful but only partial.
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?
One succinct sentence is front-loaded with the core action and key attributes. No fluff or repetition.
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 an output schema (probably rich) and 6 parameters at 0% documentation, more context is needed. The description fails to explain the format of refs_json and checks_json, the meaning of previous_digest, or any side effects (e.g., does it change the contract's state?). The complexity is moderate but the lack of param or usage guidance makes it 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%, so any parameter explanation would help. The description only mentions 'metadata-only artifact phase' and 'hash-linked' but does not explain what each of the 6 parameters means (e.g., refs_json, checks_json, previous_digest). An agent has little to infer the format or semantics of those fields.
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?
Clearly states the action 'Append' and the resource 'hash-linked, metadata-only artifact phase to a Work Contract', distinguishing it as a write operation on a contract's artifact trail. It doesn't mention siblings, but the resource and action are specific enough to separate it from generic work tools like gateway_work_intake or gateway_work_complete.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others. The description implies it's for recording artifact phases, but does not state when it should be preferred over gateway_work_event or other work lifecycle tools, and lacks exclusions or alternative mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.