insert_rung_structured

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

The provided annotations include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description only says 'Insert a rung compiled from a structured boolean expression.' It does not disclose whether inserting the rung may overwrite an existing rung at that index, what validation is done on the expression, or what feedback the caller receives. The annotation flags do some work, but the description adds little context beyond them.

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 a single concise sentence with the most important verb and object front-loaded. It earns its place by announcing the operation directly, though it omits details about behavior when the rung index already exists.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters with 6 required, nested objects, and no output schema. The description must explain behavior, return values, and side effects despite the complexity, but it remains minimal. The annotation has some hints, but the description is insufficient for an agent to work safely in the PLC 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?

The input schema covers only parameter titles (e.g., project_id, program_name, section_name), none of which are described in the description. The expression is an open object and outputs is an array of string values, but the description adds no meaning about these fields or their relationships, making the schema carry the entire burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('insert') with a resource ('rung') and states the rung is compiled from a structured boolean expression. However, it does not distinguish this insert operation from sibling replace_rung_structured, which also targets a rung index, so the scope is somewhat ambiguous without reading the 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like replace_rung, delete_rung, or compile_rung_structured. The insert semantics imply adding a rung, but conditions, prerequisites, or consequences of inserting at the given index are not stated.

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