tia_create_unified_hmi_project_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by calling the output an immutable offline plan that opens/overwrites nothing — no contradiction and useful confirmation of side-effect freedom. It does not say whether the plan is validated, what it returns, or that a separate apply step is required.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by content scope and the safety exclusion; no filler. The enumerated contents sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema and partly inaccurate, costing a point.

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 tool whose input is a large nested specification with no field documentation and no output schema, the description covers intent and non-destructiveness but leaves the agent without guidance on required field semantics or the plan-to-apply workflow. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 a single deeply nested 'spec' parameter with 0% description coverage across roughly fifteen top-level fields, and the description only gestures at a few of them (catalog ID, destination, startup screen, objects). It even mentions 'scripts,' which has no counterpart in the schema, and says nothing about deviceName, adapter const, language, connections, tags, or alarms.

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 and artifact: create an immutable offline plan for a NEW isolated Unified V20 project. The words 'NEW' and 'No existing project is opened or overwritten' implicitly separate it from the edit-plan sibling, so an agent can choose correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when this applies (brand-new isolated Unified V20 project) and an exclusion (never for existing projects). It does not name the alternative tool to use for edits, leaving the agent to infer that from sibling names.

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