Bulk replace every architecture slot in an agent spec at a specific version. Provide the spec ID, expected version, and new slot definitions to overwrite the entire slot set.
Explicitly replace every architecture slot. Prefer yaaif_agent_spec_upsert_slot for normal edits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slots | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key trait: this is an explicit replacement operation, not a normal incremental edit. However, it does not clarify whether slots omitted from the input are deleted, whether the operation is atomic, or how expected_version gates the replacement. The word 'every' is informative but somewhat ambiguous.
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 zero waste. The actionable replacement behavior is front-loaded, and the alternative-tool guidance is a useful second sentence. Every word 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 a destructive bulk operation with three required parameters, nested slot objects, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description is sufficient for tool selection but not for safe invocation: an agent would not know the full replacement semantics, how expected_version works, or the required shape of each slot entry.
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 additional meaning for spec_id, expected_version, or slots. It repeats the concept of 'architecture slot' but does not explain how to populate the nested slot items, what kinds are valid, or the role of expected_version. This is a significant gap for a tool with undocumented parameters.
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 a specific action: 'Explicitly replace every architecture slot.' It clearly identifies the resource (architecture slots) and the bulk-replacement nature, and it distinguishes this tool from the singular yaaif_agent_spec_upsert_slot sibling. An agent can understand what this tool is for without opening the schema.
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 explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition under which to prefer it: 'Prefer yaaif_agent_spec_upsert_slot for normal edits.' This gives the agent an actionable routing rule and implies that this tool is for explicit, bulk replacement rather than routine edits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.