Approves a pending penetration testing knowledge-base draft, optionally merging its details, tags, and tool info into an existing record before deleting the draft.
审批通过一条待审批草稿。 参数: experience_id: 草稿的 id merge_with_id: 可选。提供时，将草稿内容合并进指定记录（详情追加、标签合并、工具信息补全），然后删除草稿
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| experience_id | Yes | ||
| merge_with_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that merge_with_id appends details, merges tags, completes tool info, and then deletes the draft. However, it omits permission requirements and what happens to the draft when merge_with_id is not provided.
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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then parameters. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.
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 no annotations and a mutation/approval tool, the description should explain more about auth requirements and the non-merge approval outcome. It covers the merge path well, and an output schema exists, but key behavioral gaps remain.
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%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters: experience_id as the draft id, and merge_with_id as optional with detailed merge-and-delete semantics. The coverage is good, though experience_id is described only 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 specific verb and resource: approving a pending draft. It clearly identifies the action but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as reject_experience or update_experience.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to approve versus reject or update, nor when to use merge_with_id versus leaving it unset. The merge behavior is described, but no conditions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.