Share a complete task plan with the team by publishing it to the Vibecheck ledger, requiring the expected revision to ensure updates are applied to the correct version.
Publish the coordinator's complete task plan using its expected revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), and the description adds the revision-guard behavior: 'using its expected revision' signals an optimistic-concurrency check that will presumably reject a stale revision. It also hints at a role constraint via 'coordinator's,' context annotations cannot express. It stops short of explicitly stating the failure mode on revision mismatch.
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 11-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the concurrency qualifier at the end. Every word carries meaning, and there is no boilerplate or duplication of schema information.
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 core mechanism and scope are covered, but for a concurrency-guarded write with no output schema, gaps remain: the failure behavior when the expected revision is stale (only implied by the word 'expected'), the return value, and how this step fits into a plan_edit → plan_publish → plan_ack workflow are all unstated.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the semantic burden and partially pays it: 'expected revision' explains the purpose of expected_revision, and 'complete task plan' implies the tasks array is a full replacement rather than a delta. However, the project_id/request_id/session_id triplet and the TaskDefinition fields (status, depends_on, supersedes) are left to name inference 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?
The description states a specific action ('Publish'), the target (the coordinator's complete task plan), and the mechanism ('using its expected revision'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not name sibling tools, but 'publish' plus 'complete task plan' implicitly contrasts with plan_edit's incremental changes and plan_read's read-only view, giving partial sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated. The description never explains when to publish versus editing incrementally with plan_edit, acknowledging with plan_ack, or reading with plan_read, and it gives no exclusions or preconditions such as 'must hold the current revision from a prior read.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.