Mhs Write

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only), the description discloses the approval model: confirm=True never grants authority, soft overrides need host approval bound to command/state/limits, terminal IDs replay receipts, and a resumed proposal may attempt its first action only after exact approval. This is meaningful behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by tightly packed approval and replay rules. It is appropriately short for a high-complexity mutation tool, though the phrasing is dense and jargon-heavy ('exact authority proposal', 'bound to this command, state and limits').

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the key non-obvious behaviors: approval gating, confirm semantics, receipt replay, and pending-proposal resumption. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though the read/write sibling relationship is left implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including confirm and command_id. The description reinforces that confirm grants no approval and that command_id replays a receipt, but this largely overlaps the schema text rather than adding new syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (apply a write) and resource (a simulated device write via mhs_*), and distinguishes the two outcomes: executing the write or returning its authority proposal. It does not explicitly name siblings like mhs_read or mhs_reset, so an agent must infer the read/write split from the family naming.

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?

It implies the tool is the write path and states conditions under which separate host approval is required (soft overrides, confirmation-required operations), but it never says when to choose this over mhs_read, mhs_reset, or mhs_meta_info. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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