reconcile_permissionsRestore the previous native permission preset for a session requiring attention, retrying the operation to fix permission mismatches.
Retry restoration of the previous native permission preset for a session that requires attention.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that it restores the previous native preset rather than setting arbitrary permissions, but it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting current custom permissions or any prerequisites.
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 sentence with the key action and object front-loaded, and it avoids repeating the title verbatim. 'That requires attention' is somewhat vague but does not add significant bloat.
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 one-parameter, idempotent restoration tool, the description plus annotations give a minimally workable picture. However, with no output schema, it does not say what a successful restoration returns, what signals that attention is required, or what state the session should be in before calling this tool.
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 never explains sessionId, where to get it, or how it relates to the restore operation. The tool mentions 'session' generally, which weakly implies the parameter identifies the affected session, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retry restoration') and a specific resource ('previous native permission preset for a session'), making the tool's action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like reconcile_operation or setup_doctor, but the permission-restoration purpose is identifiable.
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 phrase 'for a session that requires attention' implies this is a corrective or retry operation, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives such as reconcile_operation or setup_doctor. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.