Append an integrator's decision for a submitted event, using status and note to approve or reject work within the coordination memory.
Append an Integrator review decision for a submitted event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor_id | Yes | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| actor_role | Yes | ||
| base_revision | Yes | ||
| decision_note | Yes | ||
| decision_status | Yes |
| 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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation appends a review decision, but it does not explain what happens to the event, whether decision_status triggers a state transition, what base_revision means for concurrency, or what side effects and permissions are involved.
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 11-word sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and object. It is appropriately sized and every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.
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 six required parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and a large sibling set that includes several review/decision tools, this description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It lacks parameter semantics, behavioral effects, and routing guidance between review_event and accept_event/reject_event.
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 adds almost no parameter-level meaning. It hints that decision_status and decision_note relate to a review decision, but it does not define valid decision_status values, the purpose of base_revision, or how actor_role should be set. This is insufficient compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 ('Append') and a concrete resource ('Integrator review decision' for a 'submitted event'), so the core action is clear. It does not differentiate this tool from closely related siblings such as accept_event, reject_event, or list_pending_reviews, but it is not vague or tautological.
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 on when to use this tool versus accept_event, reject_event, or other review-related siblings. The only implicit context is that the event is 'submitted' and the actor is an 'Integrator', but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.