figure_library_apply_discard_working_revisionApply a cached figure revision plan while validating operation ID, template, and series digest to prevent duplicate or stale-state applications.
Apply the exact cached plan with operation-id idempotency and stale-state checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planDigest | Yes | ||
| operationId | Yes | ||
| expectedTemplateId | Yes | ||
| expectedSeriesDigest | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description mentions idempotency and stale-state checks, but it does not clarify what side effects occur on success or failure, or what state changes are made.
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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary detail.
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 description is minimal and does not explain the concept of a 'cached plan', the operation-id mechanism, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow of planning and applying revisions, which is essential for an agent to use it correctly.
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 provides parameter names and patterns but no descriptions, and the tool description offers no explanation of what each parameter (e.g., planDigest, operationId) means or how they should be used.
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 the action (apply a cached plan) and mentions key features (operation-id idempotency and stale-state checks), but 'cached plan' is somewhat ambiguous without additional context.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling 'apply' tools, nor does it explain prerequisites or conditions for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.