hcm_rest_mutate

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already communicates that this is a mutating operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the allowed HTTP verbs, the allowlisting constraint, and the approval requirement unless --write is used. It does not detail the approval flow or failure behavior, but it does meaningfully extend the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core mutation behavior stated first and the approval condition second. It contains no filler, though the terseness leaves some important concepts like 'allowlisted' and '--write' unexplained.

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 generic mutation tool with no output schema, no parameter explanations, and no allowed-endpoint list, the description is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke it. It does not explain how to discover allowable paths, how approval is granted, what --write means in practice, or how this tool relates to dry-run and approval siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no explanation of path, body, or method semantics. The mention of POST/PATCH/PUT/DELETE only restates the method enum and adds nothing about path format, body requirements, or how --write relates to the parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a generic mutation operation covering POST/PATCH/PUT/DELETE, which makes its core purpose clear. However, 'allowlisted' and 'generic' do not specify which resources or endpoints are affected, and the description does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling mutation tools like hcm_dry_run_mutate or resource-specific create/update/delete tools.

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 alternatives such as hcm_rest_get, hcm_dry_run_mutate, or the resource-specific CRUD tools. The only usage-related note is the approval requirement, which is about authorization rather than tool selection.

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