Transfer proposed and confirmed labels between game builds by matching their signatures, preserving naming work across patches.
Carry proposed/confirmed labels from one build to another via their signatures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dst_build | No | ||
| src_build | 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. It says labels are carried 'via their signatures,' hinting at a matching mechanism, but doesn't disclose what happens on signature mismatches, whether labels are overwritten, whether this requires authentication, or any rate/scope constraints. For a label-migration tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
It's a single efficient sentence with no waste, which is good. But at a mere 10 words for a non-trivial tool with zero schema/annotation support, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
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 tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description leaves critical gaps: parameter formats, matching/overwrite behavior, error handling, and how it differs from the many label-related siblings. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it reliably.
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 provides no parameter-level detail at all. It mentions 'from one build to another,' which maps loosely to src_build/dst_build semantics, but doesn't explain the required src_build, the optional dst_build (and its empty-string default), or their formats. With two undocumented parameters and no description compensation, this scores minimally.
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 verb ('Carry') and resources ('labels', 'builds') and the mechanism ('signatures'), which is more specific than the name alone. However, 'labels' is ambiguous terminology — it's unclear whether these are data labels, function labels, or build artifact labels — and the description doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like labels, propose_label, or review_label.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether src_build must exist or have signatures), when not to use it, or how it relates to the sibling tools that also deal with labels.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.