lw_ble_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the acknowledged-vs-unacknowledged write tradeoff via with_response, but omits other material traits for a BLE write: whether it requires an active connection, MTU/chunking limits, error behavior on failure, and the role of timeout_s.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two key options, with essentially no filler. The compression is effective, though it comes at the cost of omitting several parameters that also needed coverage.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers only half the parameters and none of the connection/MTU preconditions, leaving gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It defines data_b64, data_hex, and with_response clearly, but leaves char_uuid, connection_id, and timeout_s entirely unexplained, so half the parameters remain opaque.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Send bytes to a characteristic'), which clearly separates it from descriptor-writing and read siblings in the BLE family. It stops short of explicitly naming the closest alternative (lw_ble_write_descriptor), so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 explains two in-tool choices well: encoding (base64 vs hex) and write mode (with_response vs fire-and-forget). However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like lw_ble_write_descriptor or lw_ble_read, and no preconditions (e.g. an existing connection) are mentioned.

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