Authorize one new attempt at a failed page after billing is settled and a researcher explicitly approves; resume saved results with page_process instead.
ONLY after explicit researcher approval and settled prior billing: authorize one new attempt at a failed page. Saved results must be resumed with page_process instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| runId | Yes | ||
| reviewer | Yes | ||
| sourceId | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| approvalText | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations assert readOnlyHint=false, so it's a write action, but the description supplies the actual preconditions: prior approval text and billing settlement, which are the real gating behaviors. It doesn't disclose idempotency or failure mode, keeping it short of 5.
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?
Two tight sentences, prerequisite first, alternative last, no filler.
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?
Covers the crucial 'when' and gating behavior, but with six undocumented parameters and no output schema, an agent still lacks the parameter semantics needed to invoke it correctly. The description should at least map approvalText and reviewer.
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 coverage is 0% with six required parameters, so the description carries the burden. It references approval implicitly through 'researcher approval' but never explains reviewer, approvalText, runId, or page semantics. A user could not fill these correctly from the description alone.
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 (authorize one new attempt) and resource (a failed page), with clear scope of 'one new attempt'. Sibling direction is present ('use page_process instead') but doesn't distinguish from processing_unblock, a plausible alternative.
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?
Gives explicit prerequisites (explicit researcher approval, settled prior billing) and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative for saved results (page_process). This is unusually thorough routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.