ads_plc_state

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds real beyond-annotation context: 'reset' is a cold reset that loses all non-persistent data, and 'Control-class: confirmation in guarded mode' signals the confirm_token requirement. This is meaningful disclosure of what gets destroyed and what authorization is needed.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the tool's function and immediately followed by the critical destructive-action caveat. The pipe-list action notation is efficient; there is essentially no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the destructive semantics are covered. The gap is the confirm_token workflow: the agent is told confirmation exists in guarded mode but not how to obtain or use the token (e.g., via the sibling tc_request_confirmation), leaving invocation incomplete for write operations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does partially compensate by enumerating the accepted action values (run | stop | reset), which the schema omits. However confirm_token is only obliquely referenced via "confirmation in guarded mode" and its format/obtaining procedure is unexplained.

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+resource ("PLC runtime control via ADS") and enumerates the concrete actions run | stop | reset, so the agent knows exactly the domain of effect. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like ads_system_mode or xae_restart_twincat, leaving some disambiguation to be inferred from the name.

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?

The description implies its use case (runtime state control) and adds the important prerequisite that confirmation is required in guarded mode, but it never states when to prefer this over ads_system_mode or tc_set_mode, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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