pvsyst_create_ac_cabling_variant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so substantively: preview writes nothing, execution creates exactly one new VC, custom resistance and mixed source cables are blocked, length rounding is rejected, and active vs inactive source inheritance rules are disclosed. The disclosures are real behavioral context, though the run-on phrasing makes several of them hard to parse reliably.

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?

Content is mostly substantive but presented as one undifferentiated block with run-together tokens ('recorded8.1.6', 'exactly0.1m') and a bracketed tag eating the front-loaded slot. A reader must parse three or four times to extract the same facts that could be stated in clean, ordered sentences.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers version gating, blockers, and inheritance rules, but leaves the naming contract (new_variant vs variant_name), the shift/replace consequence of writing into an existing path, and what preview versus execution actually return. 'recorded8.1.6' and 'Saving is not native consumption' are opaque without internal context.

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 largely does: length_m constraints (positive, <=100000, exactly 0.1 m representable, not rounded), metal/section inheritance from active vs inactive sources, and the BOM flag are all explained beyond the bare schema. Gaps remain for variant_name vs new_variant and the project/source_variant fields, which are only obliquely referenced.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Preview or create a NEW VC with native uniform per-inverter AC cables,' which is enough for an agent to know the outcome. However, 'VC' is unresolved jargon (presumably variant configuration) and the description never explicitly contrasts itself with the obvious sibling pvsyst_create_native_dc_cabling_variant, so sibling routing relies on inference from the tool name.

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 eligibility envelope is spelled out ('PV-only single fixed plane/subarray', no MV/HV/load/storage/P50/horizon/active geometry), which effectively defines when the tool can be used. But it never names an alternative tool or says use X instead of Y, and the one alternative mention ('Getter ac_cabling exposes stored state ... for read/re-edit') is a hint rather than an explicit directive.

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