Resolve untracked inventory items by marking them ignored or adopted. Provide scenario id to adopt after reviewing mapped bindings.
Explicitly close an untracked inventory item as ignored or adopted. Adoption requires the Scenario id after its mapped bindings were reviewed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| spec_id | No | ||
| object_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'close' (implying mutation) and a prerequisite for adoption, but it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether the item is removed, updated, or kept), reversibility, or any impact on related data. The tool's behavior beyond setting a state remains opaque, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotations.
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 primary action is front-loaded, and the extra condition about adoption is presented succinctly. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
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 incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the tool. It lacks details on what happens after closing (no output schema), prerequisites for the 'ignored' state, how to obtain the Scenario id, and what object_id refers to. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description leaves too many unanswered questions.
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 description does not explicitly map parameters. It hints that adoption requires a 'Scenario id' (likely spec_id), but does not confirm which parameter that is. object_id is not explained, and state is only described via the enum. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying parameter roles, but it only provides a vague prerequisite hint, leaving most parameters ambiguous.
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: explicitly close an untracked inventory item, with two possible outcomes (ignored or adopted). It distinguishes from sibling tools like yaaif_agent_spec_untracked_list (listing) and yaaif_agent_spec_adopt (adopting) by framing it as the closure step for untracked items. It is specific enough for an agent to grasp the core function.
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 one usage condition: adoption requires the Scenario id after mapped bindings are reviewed. This hints at when to use the 'adopted' state, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like yaaif_agent_spec_untracked_list or yaaif_agent_spec_adopt. The workflow context (e.g., first list untracked items, then resolve them) is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.