Capture a human response to an intervention and hand the run back to local execution. Enables human-in-the-loop coordination by recording feedback and continuing automation.
Record a human response and return the run to local execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| actor_id | Yes | ||
| response | Yes | ||
| actor_role | Yes | ||
| reviewed_event_id | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the main side effect—recording a response and returning the run to local execution—but it does not disclose whether this resolves the intervention, what permissions are required, or how the response is associated with a reviewed event. The core behavior is transparent, though edge details are missing.
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 a single tightly worded sentence with no filler. Both clauses earn their place: what is recorded and what effect it has. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 five parameters, no annotations, zero parameter descriptions, and a large sibling set representing an intervention workflow, this one-sentence description is not complete. It does not explain how this tool fits into the intervention lifecycle, who should call it, or how it relates to pending reviews and rejected/accepted events. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing workflow context remains significant.
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%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It indirectly clarifies 'response' as the human response and 'run' as the run being returned to execution, but it does not explain run_id, actor_id, actor_role, or reviewed_event_id. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no other description coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and a clear resource ('a human response'), and it adds the consequence ('return the run to local execution'), which distinguishes it from related tools like request_intervention or review_event. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the action is specific enough for an agent to infer its role.
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 implies the tool is used after an intervention when a human response needs to be recorded, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over request_intervention, review_event, accept_event, or reject_event. There are no stated exclusions or alternatives, leaving the decision largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.