Move a spec to the next lifecycle state by providing its ID, expected version, and target status. Active state requires passing readiness; exceptional cases can use a separately authorized override.
Transition a Scenario lifecycle state. Active is rejected until readiness passes; use a separately authorized override only for exceptional cases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| spec_id | Yes | ||
| expected_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions the rejection behavior for Active, but does not disclose other validation rules (e.g., allowed transitions, handling of expected_version mismatch) or side effects. It is not contradictory, but leaves the agent guessing about error conditions.
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?
One concise sentence packs the purpose and a key constraint. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Could be slightly clearer with a second sentence on parameters, but it is appropriately short.
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 state transition tool with no output schema and no annotations, more detail is needed. It covers the special Active case but not the general transition rules (e.g., which transitions are legal, what happens on conflict). The expected_version parameter hints at concurrency, but the description doesn't confirm that, leaving room for misuse.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not describe spec_id, expected_version, or status semantics beyond what the schema enum shows. It adds the lifecycle context but fails to explain the purpose of expected_version (optimistic locking) or the allowed status values' meaning.
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 it 'Transitions a Scenario lifecycle state', which is a specific verb and resource. It also hints at a key constraint (Active rejected until readiness passes), but lacks differentiation from the many sibling state-related tools such as activation_override or adopt.
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?
It gives a clear rule: 'Active is rejected until readiness passes; use a separately authorized override only for exceptional cases.' This implies when not to use the tool and points to an alternative (the override tool), but does not explicitly name it or cover other state transitions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.