Create approval strategy drafts with optional publishing, enabling Linear-based approval graphs for customized review workflows.
Create an approval strategy (draft). Optionally publish version 1. Use for ambient Linear+approval graphs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| publish | No | ||
| spec_id | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| slot_key | No | ||
| definition | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| object_type | No | ||
| spec_version | No | ||
| approver_email | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only hints at behavior ('draft' and 'Optionally publish version 1') but omits side effects, authentication requirements, reversibility, and the nature of the response. For a create operation, this is insufficient.
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 concise (two sentences) and leads with the core purpose, but it is under-specified for a complex tool. While it avoids fluff, the brevity comes at the cost of essential guidance, making it less effective than a moderately detailed description would be.
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?
Given the high complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention parameters, return values, side effects, or when to use this versus other approval strategy tools. An agent would be left guessing on most operational details.
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 does not explain any of the 10 parameters (e.g., spec_id, slot_key, definition). The only param reference is 'publish' indirectly via 'Optionally publish', but its name and type are not clarified. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema, which is inadequate for a tool with this many 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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Create an approval strategy'. It also differentiates from siblings by mentioning 'Optionally publish version 1', which implies a separate publish tool (yaaif_approval_strategy_publish) exists. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct.
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 provides a usage context ('Use for ambient Linear+approval graphs') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it contrasts with alternatives like the publish tool. It does not mention that this should be used for drafts and the publish tool for publishing, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.