Commit a reviewed meal or water preview after explicit user confirmation, using its operation ID to prevent duplicate writes and return per-item read-back states.
Save an existing reviewed preview after explicit user intent. Reusing its operation ID never blindly replays an uncertain item. Return per-item states; only verified means read-back succeeded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | ||
| operationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructive/openWorld/idempotent but not the retry nuance. The description explains that reusing an operation ID will not blindly replay an uncertain item, and clarifies return semantics ('per-item states', 'verified means read-back succeeded') with no output schema present – substantive behavior beyond structured fields.
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?
Three tightly packed sentences that front-load the core action before retry semantics and return states. Every sentence earns its place, though the final clause is slightly telegraphic.
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 destructive, open-world write tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies purpose, precondition, retry safety, and return-state meaning. It omits failure/partial-application handling and the confirm semantics, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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 neither parameter is documented in the schema, so the description must carry the load. It references the 'operation ID' retry behavior and implies the confirm flag via 'explicit user intent', but never explains the required confirm=true or the UUID format, leaving gaps.
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 ('Save') and resource ('an existing reviewed preview'), which distinguishes it from the preview_meal/preview_water siblings and from fitbit_operation. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
'after explicit user intent' gives a clear precondition for invocation, tying it to a prior reviewed preview. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are named (e.g., use fitbit_cancel_draft instead), so it lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.