ads_system_mode

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it names the exact consequence (runtime restarts and I/O drops), which is essential operation context for a disruptive action.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action, then immediately qualifies it with the destructive consequences. No filler, no redundancy.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety hints. But with 0% parameter coverage and an unexplained confirm_token tied to a destructive-mode switch, plus no routing guidance among many mode-related siblings, the definition is only minimally complete for such a high-risk operation.

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 the parameter burden. It names the two 'action' values ('run' and 'config'), which is useful mapping, but it never explains the confirm_token parameter or the confirmation flow it implies, leaving a required interaction step undocumented.

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 ('Switch') and resource ('TwinCAT on the target') plus the two states it toggles between, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like tc_set_mode or ads_plc_state, leaving ambiguity about which mode-switcher to pick.

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 warns of the side effect (runtime restart, I/O down) and declares itself 'Destructive-class,' which implies caution, but it never says when to use this versus the sibling alternatives such as tc_set_mode, ads_plc_state, or xae_restart_twincat, nor any prerequisite or ordering.

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