Review quarantined campaign tips and approve or reject them using supporting evidence to enforce campaign governance.
Approve or reject a quarantined campaign tip with evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tip_id | Yes | ||
| review_state | Yes | ||
| binding_token | No | Opaque token returned by this agent's join_session or plan_session. Required for reliable identity when logical agents share an MCP connection. | |
| evidence_refs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only reveals that the tool approves or rejects. It does not disclose side effects, whether the action is reversible, permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens to the tip after moderation.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to identifying the core action and resource.
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 mutating moderation tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not explain how evidence_refs is used, how binding_token factors into identity, what the response indicates, or what state the tip enters after approval or rejection.
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 only 25%, and the description adds little beyond the word 'evidence' to clarify parameters. tip_id and review_state are obvious from names and enum, but evidence_refs and binding_token are left mostly undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the schema 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 verb pair (approve/reject), a clear resource (quarantined campaign tip), and a distinguishing qualifier (with evidence). This makes the tool's purpose understandable and reasonably distinguishable from siblings like drop_tip or tip_useful, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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 this is used in a moderation workflow for quarantined tips, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as drop_tip or resolve_contradiction. It also does not explain prerequisites, such as whether evidence must already be attached or whether a claim/lease on the tip is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.