Create a state within a SysML region, specifying its name and optionally marking it as initial pseudostate or final state.
Create a State inside a Region. Set is_initial='true' for an initial Pseudostate, is_final='true' for a FinalState.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| is_final | No | false | |
| region_id | Yes | ||
| is_initial | No | false |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that setting is_initial creates a Pseudostate and is_final creates a FinalState, which is behavioral. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., region must exist), or failure modes. It also doesn't state whether the flags are mutually exclusive. This is moderate disclosure but leaves gaps.
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 concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second explains the flag usage. No fluff, every word contributes. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 simple creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it creates, where, and the special cases. It doesn't mention mutual exclusivity of the flags or prerequisites, but these are minor for a straightforward tool. The output schema likely handles return values, so that's not needed. Overall, it's fairly complete.
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 the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of is_initial and is_final, and implicitly ties region_id to the region. However, it doesn't elaborate on the format of region_id or any constraints on name. It adds some value but not complete compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create'), the resource ('State'), and the location ('inside a Region'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create_state_machine and create_region by focusing on the state creation within an existing region. The additional note about initial and final pseudostates clarifies the tool's full scope.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when creating a state (or initial/final pseudostate) within a region. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling list. The flag instructions provide guidance on how to create different kinds of states, which is useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.