diff --git a/docs/HOST-TOOLS-PROPOSAL.md b/docs/HOST-TOOLS-PROPOSAL.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..801cb95
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/HOST-TOOLS-PROPOSAL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# Proposal: a public seam for host-supplied tools at the Engine/prepare level
+
+Status: **proposal**, not a spec. Filed by a downstream embedder against
+`docs/INTEGRATION.md`'s "Embedding the library" path. Nothing here is a
+request to change v0 behavior today -- it's a seam to consider, and a
+heads-up that we plan to move off it the moment the v1 facade covers it.
+
+## The gap
+
+Our host is a `.dot`-pipeline runner. Some pipeline nodes declare their own
+tools (a status-file writer, a delegation nudge) that the node's worker needs
+in order to report back to the pipeline. When a node's worker is
+`amplifier-agent`'s `Engine`, embedded per `docs/INTEGRATION.md`, there is no
+public way to hand it one of those host-declared tools -- `load_and_prepare_cached`
+-> `Engine(turn_handler)` -> `boot` -> `submit_turn` has no parameter for it, and
+`PreparedBundle`/`mount_plan` are internal to `amplifier-foundation`, not this
+library's contract.
+
+We had an adapter that closed this gap by reaching into the hosted session's
+own coordinator (`session.coordinator.mount("tools", tool, name=tool.name)`)
+from inside our `turn_handler`. It worked -- it's the same call shape
+`amplifier_agent_http/_session_runner.py` itself uses to mount
+`HostToolProxy` instances onto a live per-turn coordinator
+(`_session_runner.py:134`), so it clearly *can* be done safely. We deleted it
+anyway: `coordinator` is your internals, reached from outside the one place
+(`amplifier_agent_http`) that's actually part of this codebase. An embedder
+depending on that shape has no compatibility guarantee and no changelog entry
+protecting it. We'd rather disclose the capability gap to our own users than
+keep leaning on a reach-in.
+
+## What we're asking
+
+Not a specific API -- just that host-supplied tools get a *public* attach
+point at the `Engine`/prepare layer, so an embedder never needs
+`session.coordinator` to do it. `amplifier_agent_http` already proves the
+mechanism is safe internally; the ask is to expose the same capability
+through the contract surface `docs/INTEGRATION.md` documents.
+
+Roughly, something that fits alongside the existing recipe:
+
+```python
+prepared = await load_and_prepare_cached(aaa_version=__version__)
+inject_provider(prepared, "anthropic")
+
+# proposed: a public seam, shaped however fits amplifier-foundation's own
+# mount-plan model -- this is illustrative, not a signature request.
+inject_host_tools(prepared, [my_status_writer_tool])
+
+handler = make_turn_handler(prepared, cwd=..., is_resumed=False, workspace=...)
+engine = Engine(turn_handler=handler, protocol_points={...})
+```
+
+`inject_provider`/`inject_routing_matrix` are already exactly this shape --
+a public function that mutates `prepared` before `boot`. A host-tools
+counterpart would be consistent with a pattern the library has already
+chosen, not a new one.
+
+## We already see where this is headed, and we're glad
+
+`docs_v1/05-interface/tools.md` documents `ToolsConfig(host_tools=[HostTool(...)])`
+on `AgentConfig` for the `create_agent`/`Agent`/`Session` facade -- exactly
+the caller-supplied-tools seam this proposal is asking for, designed better
+than anything we'd have sketched ourselves (one flat tool set, no
+`source`-mismatch surprises for the model, explicit `ToolResult`/`allow`/`deny`
+semantics). The moment that facade ships as code, we intend to move our
+embedding onto it and retire this ask entirely -- this proposal is scoped
+only to the gap between now and then, for embedders on the current
+`load_and_prepare_cached`/`Engine` contract in the meantime.
+
+## Non-goals
+
+- Not asking for tool-visibility policy, approval routing, or MCP -- those
+  already have seams (`ApprovalSystem`, `docs_v1`'s `mcp_servers`).
+- Not asking for a v0 commitment shaped like the v1 sketch above; whatever
+  fits the current internals is fine.
+- Not a reach-in request in the other direction either -- if the answer is
+  "wait for v1," that's a fine answer, and this doc is as much a vote for
+  prioritizing that facade's `host_tools` as it is a v0 ask.