Apply a trim to a function model and return explicit deletion/gluing data with declared absorbers, interface, and checked replay.
Return an applied trim as explicit deletion/gluing data with its declared absorbers, interface, and checked replay. No Kan-extension claim is made.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trim | Yes | ||
| model | Yes | ||
| absorb | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or applies/mutates the model, whether the input model must be validated first, or what 'checked replay' verifies. The single disclaimer about Kan-extension is the only behavioral hint.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action and output. Its brevity is a virtue, though it comes at the cost of the missing context noted elsewhere.
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?
Given a large nested schema, no output schema, and no annotations, this two-sentence description is far too thin. It omits the return shape, prerequisites, and how the three parameters interact, leaving the agent with major unanswered questions.
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?
Three parameters (model, trim, absorb) with 0% top-level schema description coverage. The description's mention of 'declared absorbers' loosely maps to absorb and 'applied trim' to trim, but it never explains what 'trim' (a string array) means or how absorb Endpoint entries relate to it, so it fails to 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 verb 'Return' plus resource 'applied trim' gives a rough idea: it emits deletion/gluing data, absorbers, interface, and a checked replay. But it is dense jargon ('gluing data', 'absorbers', 'Kan-extension') and never distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling triz_trim or triz_rewrite_pair, so an agent cannot confidently pick it over those without opening the schema.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (triz_trim, triz_absorber_assignments, triz_rewrite_pair) that an agent would need to choose between. The 'no Kan-extension claim' sentence is a scope disclaimer, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.