Settle uncertain Audience management writes by reading provider state to confirm the outcome without resending the original request.
Settle an uncertain Audience management write by reading the provider; never resends.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them by explaining the mechanism: it settles state by reading the provider rather than retrying the write ('never resends'). That is a behavioral trait an agent cannot derive from the annotations alone.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and mechanism with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves the reader to unpack 'uncertain' and 'settle'.
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?
An output schema exists so return-value semantics need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is parameter documentation (0% coverage) and the absence of explicit routing among the several sibling reconcile/apply tools, leaving the definition minimum-viable rather than complete.
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 none of the three parameters ('operation', 'idempotency_key', 'args') are mentioned or clarified in the description. For a tool requiring an idempotency_key, the description offers no explanation of how the key is used or what 'operation' should contain, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 verb ('settle') and resource ('an uncertain Audience management write') plus the mechanism ('by reading the provider'). This clearly separates it from the prepare/apply siblings and from the webmaster_/metrika_ variants of the same reconcile pattern. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly.
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?
'Settle an uncertain ... write' implies the usage context (a prior write whose outcome is unknown), which is reasonable guidance. However, no explicit when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g. audience_manage_apply, audience_reconcile_create) are named, so the agent must infer the trigger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.