Write bytes to a BLE descriptor by handle. Encode payload as base64 or hex to configure descriptor values during Bluetooth Low Energy debugging.
Store bytes into a descriptor addressed by handle; encode the payload as base64 or hex.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | ||
| data_b64 | No | ||
| data_hex | No | ||
| timeout_s | No | ||
| connection_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: 'store bytes' implies a mutation but says nothing about required permissions, error behavior on an invalid handle, whether the write is acknowledged, or how timeouts are surfaced. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
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 efficiently packaged sentence that front-loads the operation and follows with the encoding constraint. It is well sized, though the second clause mixes behavior with parameter detail.
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 mutating BLE tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves too much unspecified: connection requirements, error/timeout semantics, and the remaining three parameters.
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, and it only partially does: it explains that the payload is base64 or hex, which hints at data_b64 vs data_hex. It says nothing about connection_id, timeout_s, handle semantics, or the mutual exclusivity of the two encoding parameters.
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?
States a concrete verb and resource ('store bytes into a descriptor') plus the addressing mechanism ('addressed by handle'), which separates it from the sibling lw_ble_write that targets characteristics. It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly, so differentiation is structural 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (must an active connection exist?), and no mention of the alternative lw_ble_read_descriptor or lw_ble_write. The agent must infer the use case purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.