fleet_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and uses it well: it discloses the write-allowed prerequisite, the readback verification process, and the skipping behavior for safety_critical devices. It also explains the dual reporting of acknowledged and converged. This covers the key behavioral traits beyond the basic 'write' action.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, prerequisite, verification, and safety handling. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, earning a 5.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what it writes, when it's allowed, how writes are verified, and how safety classification affects execution. Missing parameter semantics for a few fields, but the output schema likely compensates for return values, making this reasonably 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?

The schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds genuine meaning for confirm_addresses (overrides safety_critical skip) and implies resource/fleet, but value, priority, addresses, and timeout_s remain undocumented. The coverage gap keeps this at a 3.

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 opens with 'Write one resource across a fleet,' which is a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fleet_read and fleet_scan. It also adds context about write verification and safety-category handling, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 states a hard prerequisite (FLEET_ALLOW_WRITES=1) and explains when safety_critical devices will be skipped unless confirmed. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the read/scan/watch/status siblings are implicitly differentiated by the write focus. This gives clear context without formal exclusions, matching a 4.

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