Records explicit human approval for requirements, design, or tasks in Spec-Driven Development, ensuring each stage is validated before code generation.
Registra aprovação humana explícita para requisitos, design ou tarefas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | Yes | ||
| feature_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Registra' implies a write/persisted state change, but nothing is said about whether approval is idempotent, whether it unblocks later stages (spec-impl), whether it can be revoked, or what permissions are needed.
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 efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though it is also thin enough that conciseness comes partly from under-specification.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but this is a state-mutating approval gate with no annotations, 0% parameter documentation, and 15 sibling spec tools. Missing are the stage value vocabulary, prerequisite checks, and the effect of approval on downstream tools.
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%: neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description partially compensates by enumerating the three values the 'stage' parameter conceptually takes (requirements, design, tasks), but it says nothing about the feature_name parameter or the exact string format the stage field expects.
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 and resource ('Registra aprovação humana explícita') and names the three domains it covers (requisitos, design, tarefas). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like validate_spec, spec-status, or spec-feedback, which all operate on the same artifacts, so an agent must guess among several similar-sounding tools.
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 when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The word 'explícita' hints that this records a deliberate human sign-off rather than an automated check, but the description never says when to call this instead of validate_spec or spec-status, nor what prerequisite state is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.