Preflight a note action against the present configuration, then write the note only when the transition is valid, yielding an evidence receipt.
Preflight a concrete local note action, then write it only when the present configuration forms that transition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proposal | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions a preflight step and a conditional write, implying mutation, but does not explain what happens when the condition fails, what the preflight entails, or whether the write is destructive. This is insufficient for an agent.
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?
The description is short and roughly structured as a two-step process, but its cryptic wording reduces clarity. It avoids verbosity, yet the brevity does not compensate for the ambiguous and opaque language.
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?
The tool has one nested object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must supply nearly all operational context. It does not explain what a 'proposal' is, what 'preflight' validates, what 'configuration' and 'transition' refer to, or what the tool returns. The description is far from adequate for correct invocation.
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 makes no reference to the 'proposal' parameter or its expected structure. Since the agent must construct a valid 'proposal' object, the lack of any semantic guidance for this parameter is a critical 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?
The description names a specific operation—preflight a local note action and conditionally write it—so it goes beyond a tautology. However, the phrase 'when the present configuration forms that transition' is vague and fails to define what sort of transition or action is involved, leaving the overall purpose murky.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or what alternatives might apply. The only condition mentioned—'write it only when the present configuration forms that transition'—is too abstract to serve as practical usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.