Mark a gap as being worked or answered for bookkeeping without writing to the knowledge base. Use gap_promote to land a verified answer and close the gap.
Mark a gap as being worked or answered — bookkeeping only, does not write to the knowledge base. Use gap_promote to actually land a verified answer and close the gap out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| app_id | Yes | ||
| gap_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by stating this is 'bookkeeping only' and 'does not write to the knowledge base', clarifying the side-effect boundary. No contradiction with annotations. It could mention more about state changes or return behavior, but it is sufficient for a simple bookkeeping tool.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, the boundary condition ('bookkeeping only') is stated immediately, and the alternative tool guidance is appended without repetition.
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 simple tool with no output schema and only three parameters, the description covers the core purpose and distinguishes it from a sibling. However, it omits any explanation of what a successful call returns, how the note parameter is used, or how app_id/gap_id identify the target gap. These gaps make it minimally viable but not complete.
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 provides no guidance on app_id, gap_id, or note. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level parameter descriptions, leaving an agent to guess at required identifiers and the meaning of the optional note.
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?
States a specific action 'Mark a gap as being worked or answered' with a clear resource and scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from gap_promote by noting it is bookkeeping only and does not write to the knowledge base, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly names gap_promote as the alternative to use when actually landing a verified answer and closing the gap. This gives a clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use directive, telling the agent to choose this tool for marking status and gap_promote for finalizing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.