hcm_dry_run_mutate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: it validates path/method/body shape and explicitly states 'does not call Fusion'. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the tool's non-execution behavior and validation scope, providing useful additional transparency without contradicting annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Dry-run an allowlisted mutate') and then efficiently states what it validates and what it does not do. There is zero redundant phrasing, making it highly economical and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has only three parameters and no output schema, and the annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint). The description explains the validation scope and the non-call behavior, but it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., validation errors, success status) or clarify what 'allowlisted' means in practice. For a dry-run tool, understanding the output format is important, and this is absent.

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%, yet the description only mentions 'path/method/body shape' without elaborating on each parameter's meaning, format, or constraints. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions; the enum for method and type for path are provided only in the schema, not clarified in the description. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already exposes.

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 clearly states the tool's function: to dry-run an allowlisted mutate operation, validating path/method/body shape without actually calling Fusion. This distinguishes it from actual mutation tools like hcm_rest_mutate and hcm_rest_get, and the specific verb 'dry-run' plus resource 'allowlisted mutate' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use it (for validation without side effects) by stating 'does not call Fusion', but it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when NOT to use it. There is no direct comparison to hcm_rest_mutate, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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