Applies a saved review decisions file, keeps the newest decision for each cut, and reports if the result counts as a review.
Apply a decisions file saved from review.html. For each cut the newer decision wins, so decisions made after the page was built are kept. The result says whether it counts as a review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| talk | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| project_dir | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real merge semantics (per-cut, newer decision wins, later decisions are kept) plus a hint about the result. It omits permissions, expected file format, error/failure behavior, and whether existing decisions can be overwritten, so it is 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the key merge rule. No filler, though the trailing 'result says whether it counts as a review' clause is vague rather than informative.
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 4-parameter mutation/import tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: all four parameters are unexplained and return behavior is only hinted at. It conveys the core merge rule but is not complete enough to call the tool confidently.
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 4 parameters, and the description never explains what `path`, `project_dir`, `talk`, or `project` mean. Only `path` is obliquely implied by the 'decisions file' phrasing; the scoping parameters are entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
"Apply a decisions file saved from review.html" gives a specific verb (apply) and resource (decisions file from review.html), which an agent can act on. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing this import path from the sibling `decide` tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.
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 only implied: the mention of "saved from review.html" and "decisions made after the page was built" hints this runs after a review page exists, but there is no explicit when/when-not and no alternative sibling (e.g. `decide`) is named or contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.