Update run binding metadata and append observed events to keep coordination memory accurate and up-to-date.
Update active run communication metadata and append an observed event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| actor_id | Yes | ||
| actor_role | Yes | ||
| binding_patch | Yes | ||
| event_payload | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'update' and 'append', which implies mutation, but it does not disclose whether metadata is replaced or merged, what happens when event_payload is null, or whether the action is reversible or requires special permissions.
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 one compact sentence with no filler and front-loads the primary update action. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter detail.
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 tool has five parameters, nested objects, an output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only provides a high-level action. An agent cannot determine correct parameter values, the meaning of actor_role, the shape of binding_patch, or the relationship between this and sibling event/binding tools.
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 run_id, actor_id, actor_role, binding_patch, or event_payload. It loosely maps 'communication metadata' to binding_patch and 'observed event' to event_payload, but that is too weak to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 names concrete actions ('Update', 'append') and targets ('active run communication metadata', 'observed event'), so it is more than a tautology. However, 'communication metadata' is vague and does not explicitly tie to the 'binding' concept in the tool name, nor does it clearly separate this from sibling tools like append_event.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention append_event, heartbeat_run, checkpoint_run, or any condition that would select this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.