mt4_adopt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states 'RECORDS-ONLY: it changes NOTHING — no upload, no restart, no preview,' and explains constraints and the confirm flag. This gives a complete picture of the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, detailed explanation, and parameter list. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value; could be slightly more concise but still effective.

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 description covers input parameters and behavior thoroughly, but does not mention the output schema or return values. Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description could briefly indicate what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure or manifest info). Otherwise, it is complete for this tool's typical use.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: terminal (id), bundle (local directory path), confirm (needed for live), and adds context about bundle layout and required presence of files.

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 purpose: 'Take an already-running terminal under mt4ctl management (first cutover).' It explains what the tool does (records file hashes) and distinguishes it from the sibling mt4_deploy, making 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use before first mt4_deploy on an unmanaged terminal; it is bundle-scoped and requires all bundle files to exist; confirm=true is needed for live terminals. It also suggests a follow-up dry-run deploy to confirm clean state.

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