Declare a consumer scenario's dependency on a provider scenario release range, with explicit version-protected update constraints.
Declare that this consumer Scenario depends on a provider Scenario release range. The update is version-protected and explicit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec_id | Yes | ||
| required | No | ||
| expected_version | Yes | ||
| provider_spec_id | Yes | ||
| version_constraint | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It contributes 'The update is version-protected and explicit,' hinting at an optimistic concurrency check via expected_version, but does not disclose failure modes, side effects, or permissions. This is partial transparency, not a complete behavioral profile.
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 two sentences with no filler: the first gives the core purpose and the second adds a distinctive behavioral trait. It is appropriately sized and every phrase earns its place.
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?
This is an upsert tool with five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions. The description omits parameter meanings, the version-protection mechanism, the expected format of version_constraint, and whether required is optional. An agent cannot safely know how to invoke it correctly from the description alone.
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 only obliquely references a release range (likely version_constraint) and version protection (likely expected_version), but never explains spec_id, provider_spec_id, version_constraint syntax, or the required boolean. This is inadequate for constructing a valid call.
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 ('Declare') and the resource (consumer Scenario depends on provider Scenario release range), which distinguishes it from listing or deleting dependencies. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like yaaif_agent_spec_release_dependencies, relying on the tool name's 'upsert' to imply create-or-update.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yaaif_agent_spec_release_dependency_delete or yaaif_agent_spec_release_dependencies. It does not state prerequisites, when to create versus update, or what makes it the right choice in a given workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.