pvsyst_prepare_block_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: 'Preview builds in memory without writes; execution never overwrites or backs up an existing project.' It also warns that unsupported shading, sharing, and common load/storage/transformer systems 'stop' and that inherited weather/losses/electrical suitability 'require review.' That is strong disclosure of side effects and failure modes, though it does not cover permissions, exact return contents, or rate limits.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and most clauses carry real constraints. But the description is a dense wall of semicolon-separated jargon that would be easier to use if split into structured sections for preconditions, side effects, and exclusions. It is appropriately sized for a complex engineering tool but poorly structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers behavioral constraints and failure modes reasonably well. It is incomplete for a preparation tool because it never explains what a preview or execution returns, and it leaves several parameter names undefined. An agent could attempt a call but would be guessing about the result shape and identifier formats.

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 block semantics ('Each block names a unique source_subarray_id and count INCLUDING the original') and implies dry_run behavior via preview vs. execution. It says nothing about what source_project, source_variant, or new_project strings should contain, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare one NEW project from explicit counts of fully defined native block types.' It also sets scope by excluding native runs, GUI, INI, weather acquisition, and certification. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like pvsyst_prepare_design_project or pvsyst_prepare_sourced_design, and jargon such as 'source VC and PRJ' leaves the exact nature of the preparation somewhat opaque.

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 gives constraints on use ('Cover every source subarray exactly once, at most 100 blocks in total', 'Copy whole exclusive inverter/MPPT/string branches'), which imply when the tool applies. But it never names an alternative tool or states the condition that would route an agent to pvsyst_prepare_design_project or pvsyst_create_project instead. Usage guidance is present but only implicit through exclusions and preconditions.

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