Apply gated Hermes skill patch

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

The description discloses that it writes a 'private backup and receipt artifact,' which is useful behavioral context. The four-gate check and 'exact-scope' constraint add transparency about safety behavior. However, destructiveHint=false is already in annotations and the description doesn't contradict it; the description adds moderate value but doesn't detail failure behaviors (what happens when a gate fails, whether partial writes occur). With annotations present but sparse (all hints false/neutral), the description partially compensates.

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 packs in the gating condition, the artifact behaviors, and the exact-scope constraint with zero wasted words. Very efficient for a complex mutation tool.

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 high-complexity mutation tool with 12 parameters, no schema description coverage, and an output schema the description doesn't characterize. The description mentions backup and receipt artifacts but doesn't describe the return result, failure semantics when gates fail, or the relationship to the proposal tool flow. Given the rich gating and error-handling complexity, the description is substantially under-specified.

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%, meaning the description carries full burden for the 12 parameters, but it names only some: allow_skill_write gate (implicitly tied to skill_id and expected_original_sha256), confirmation_nonce, old_string/new_string. Parameters like home, source, profile, replace_all, file_path, toolkit_root are completely undocumented. The description adds some semantics by explaining the gating relation but leaves major parameters unexplained.

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 verb ('apply'), the resource ('exact-scope skill-file patch'), and the gating mechanism (mutation policy, allow_skill_write, expected sha256, confirmation nonce). It distinguishes this write-apply tool from sibling hermes_skill_patch_proposal and hermes_config_patch_apply. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate against all patch-related siblings, slightly limiting sibling differentiation.

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 use for applying skill patches, and the gating conditions (all four gates must pass) provide context on when invocation is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus hermes_skill_patch_proposal (proposal vs apply distinction is only implicit) or hermes_config_patch_apply (skill vs config distinction implied).

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