Write derivative content into a target space using the source's propose-commit persistence mode to ensure consistent approval workflows.
Write a derivative into a target space, honoring the source persistence mode (propose->commit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| sessionId | No | ||
| sourceSpace | No | ||
| targetSpace | No | ||
| sourceRetrievalIds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a write operation and mentions propose->commit, but does not clarify whether the tool commits, proposes, or returns intermediate state. Side effects and lifecycle behavior remain ambiguous.
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 wasted words. The core action and a key behavioral constraint are stated efficiently.
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 five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only a high-level action and a vague persistence-mode note. Essential information about parameters, return behavior, and lifecycle is missing.
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 the description does not explain the five parameters. Only 'target space' is referenced; content, sessionId, sourceSpace, and sourceRetrievalIds are left entirely undefined.
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 clear verb ('Write') and resource ('derivative into a target space'), and adds a specific behavioral qualifier about honoring source persistence mode. It is distinguishable from siblings like noetic.propose/noetic.commit, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 siblings such as noetic.store, noetic.commit, or noetic.propose. The persistence-mode hint implies some usage context, but no alternatives or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.