pvsyst_create_native_dc_cabling_variant

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses many behavioral traits: dry_run reads state without activating/typing, failure can leave a new file/current modal with path disclosed, saving is not simulation consumption proof, native SaveAs chooses the new VC id, variant_name is a display title, and BOM/display comments may normalize. It also lists prohibited actions (no application start/exit, INI edit, clipboard, external DC formula, private VC patch).

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?

The content is dense and front-loaded with the core action, but it reads as a single wall of text with non-standard abbreviations and nested clauses. While many sentences earn their place by conveying constraints, the lack of structure (bullet points, separate paragraphs) makes parsing harder than necessary.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, mode semantics, failure modes, file handling, prohibited operations, and scope exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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. It defines value constraints for dc.value (finite, nonnegative, exact 0.01 precision, <=20 characters; percent<=100) and clarifies that variant_name is a display title while 'Native SaveAs chooses the new VC id'. It also explains dry_run and confirm behavior. However, the 'project' and 'source_variant' parameters are only indirectly addressed through the alignment requirement, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Set native DC resistance(mOhm) or STC loss(%)'. It distinguishes itself from sibling variant-creation tools by listing what it does not handle (AC/MV/HV/load/storage/geometry/horizon/P50), which effectively scopes its domain. However, the dense parenthetical constraints and jargon slightly obscure the core action.

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 explicitly states preconditions ('operator must have the matching project open and DataPath equal to the MCP workspace'), mode selection ('dry_run only reads... Actual input requires dry_run=false AND confirm=true'), and exclusions ('No application start/exit, INI edit, clipboard...'). It clearly tells the agent when to use dry-run versus actual input and what not to do.

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