ads_add_route_to_plc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the UDP discovery protocol and stating that credentials are required. It does not explain reversibility, side effects, or what the confirm_token parameter is for, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 very concise and front-loads the action and target. The trailing fragment 'Control-class.' is terse but cryptic, slightly weakening an otherwise efficient structure.

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 is a destructive mutation with 7 parameters and zero schema descriptions, yet the description omits parameter-level meaning, confirmation flow, and side effects. It does mention protocol and credential requirements, but this is not enough for the agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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% for 7 parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not. 'Needs the target's Windows/TC-BSD credentials' loosely hints at plc_username and plc_password, but plc_ip, hostname, route_name, local_net_id, and confirm_token are not explained at all.

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 ('Create') and resource ('PLC-side route back to this PC'), which distinguishes it from sibling route-listing tools such as ads_routes. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative tool or clarify when this creation tool should be preferred over discovery or listing tools.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('needs the target's Windows/TC-BSD credentials') and the protocol involved, which gives some usage context. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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