hs4.change.prepare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'guarded mutation' and 'two-phase execution' but fails to disclose side effects, authorization needs, token expiration, or what happens if the commit is not called.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks necessary detail, making it insufficient for effective use. It could be expanded while maintaining conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of a two-phase commit protocol and the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter explanations, the description is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and handle the response.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (`toolName`, `args`, `summary`). The agent cannot infer what values to provide or how they relate to the guarded mutation.

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 action: preparing a guarded mutation and returning a commit token for two-phase execution. This distinguishes it from siblings like `hs4.change.commit`, which presumably commits the prepared mutation.

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 a two-phase execution pattern, suggesting it is used before `hs4.change.commit`. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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