pvsyst_run_engineering_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: preview writes nothing, execution creates a new project/variant, reloads via native CLI, runs a full hourly year, emits CSV/PDF, records actual run inputs, and retains failure evidence without automatic retry or rollback. It also explains status semantics such as needs_review and native_consumption_verified.

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 description is front-loaded and dense with useful constraints, with no obvious filler. It is long and uses compressed semicolon-heavy sentences, but the length is largely justified by the tool's complexity.

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 complexity, lack of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand side effects, execution flow, output artifacts, failure behavior, and key status fields. The remaining field-level details are handled by the schema.

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?

The schema has low top-level description coverage, but the description adds important semantics for the spec payload: objective, nameplate kWp/source, supported changes, inherited equipment, storage scalar updates, load_manifest_name matching, and the WeakGrid availability declaration. It does not document every nested field, but it compensates for the biggest ambiguities.

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: preview or execute an isolated engineering revision of a fixed/tracking or AC-storage project. It makes the scope clear enough to distinguish this from generic simulation tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 clear context for when this tool applies, including supported project types, inherited equipment, and the prohibition on model fitting or sizing inference. It stops short of naming specific alternative tools to use for adjacent tasks.

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