Mark journal entries as upgraded after subagents complete LLM-narrative conversion. Pass the affected task slugs to update their status.
After dispatching subagents to upgrade mechanical journal entries to LLM-narrative, call this with the affected task slugs. Updates journal_meta.status_latest to mark the entries as upgraded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_slugs | Yes | Task slugs whose entries were upgraded by subagents. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It states the effect (updates journal_meta.status_latest) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, failure behavior, or authorization needs. It adds some behavioral context but lacks depth.
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 concise, two sentences, with the core action and its effect front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff.
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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if a slug is invalid?) and confirmation messages, which an agent might need for robust 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?
The schema already fully documents task_slugs with a description. The description adds the context that these slulgs should be for entries upgraded, but does not add syntax or format details. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description's contextual hint pushes it to 4.
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 clearly states that this tool commits upgrades to mechanical journal entries, marking status_latest. It specifies the action (commit) and the resource (journal entries), and is distinct from siblings like journal.append and journal.distill. However, it does not fully differentiate from journal.housekeep or journal.status.
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 explicitly says to call this 'after dispatching subagents to upgrade mechanical journal entries to LLM-narrative', which gives clear context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the workflow context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.