Apply gated Hermes config patch

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false (mutating but not destructive), and the description adds meaningful context: it mentions exact-scope patching, multiple safety gates, and side effects of writing a private backup and receipt artifact. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on gate failure (is it a no-op or partial write?), reversibility via the backup, or whether replace_all changes behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the patch-apply purpose and lists key behavioral constraints efficiently. It's compact and wastes no words, though it could be split into two sentences for readability.

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?

This is a complex, mutating tool with 10 parameters, 6 required, 0% schema coverage, and no description of parameter semantics or failure behavior. Despite having an output schema, the description doesn't cover the prerequisite workflow (e.g., needing a prior proposal or confirmation nonce from a review step), which is critical context for an agent to safely invoke a gated mutation tool. The description covers the gates at a high level but not the parameter-level and workflow-level detail needed.

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 for 10 parameters, but it mentions none of them by name except implicitly the gates (allowing the write, sha256, nonce). The description does not explain the semantics of home, profile, toolkit_root, replace_all, config_path resolution, or the old_string/new_string substitution mechanics, which would be essential for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Apply an exact-scope config-file patch') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling hermes_skill_patch_apply by scoping to config files (vs skills). It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, but the config-vs-skill distinction is clear enough from the action described.

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 lists the gate conditions that must pass but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus hermes_config_summary, hermes_config_compare_surfaces, or hermes_config_patch_apply alternatives. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statement, no mention of pairing with a proposal/proposal-review step before applying, and no prerequisites stated.

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