tia_apply_unified_hmi_edit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral facts beyond them: baseline recheck under exclusive access (locking), retained scoped recovery values, device compile plus verification in a fresh helper session, and critically no automatic rollback on failure. It stops short of describing failure handling or what state is left behind after a failed apply.

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?

Two sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. Some phrasing is dense internal jargon ('keep scoped recovery values', 'fresh helper session') that an unfamiliar agent must interpret, but every clause carries information.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers execution behavior well but leaves the prerequisite plan-creation step and all three parameter contracts unexplained. An agent knows roughly what will happen but not how to assemble a valid call.

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% across three required parameters (confirmToken, planSha256, approval), so the description carries the full explanatory burden — yet it says nothing about where the confirmToken comes from, that planSha256 must match the exact plan bytes, or that approval is a fixed literal. Only 'explicitly approved' loosely gestures at the approval field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Apply one explicitly approved immutable Unified property plan'. The create/apply pairing against tia_create_unified_hmi_edit_plan is inferable from the wording ('plan' that is already approved), but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the plan must be 'explicitly approved' and 'immutable', which suggests a prior create/approve step, but the description never says to use tia_create_unified_hmi_edit_plan first or when to prefer an alternative apply tool. The closing sentence gives scope exclusions ('No object reconstruction, download or automatic rollback') rather than selection guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.