ads_write_raw

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and readOnly=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: every symbol whose memory overlaps the written range is validated against write allow/deny lists, and the raw target is named as 'raw:<port>/<igrp hex>/<ioffs hex>'. That safety-check disclosure is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though auth requirements and post-write state are not covered.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action and port restriction front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'raw:<port>/<igrp hex>/<ioffs hex>' fragment is a bit dense and could be clearer, but overall it is efficient.

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 explained, and the destructive/allow-deny context is present. Still, for a raw memory-write tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits the hex_data format, the ams_net_id parameter's purpose, and what happens when an overlapping symbol is denied, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify what index_group/index_offset mean (encoded as igrp/ioffs hex in the target string) and bounds the port parameter to 851-859, but it says nothing about hex_data's expected format or the role of ams_net_id, leaving the two most easily misused parameters 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+resource: a raw ADS write addressed by index group/offset, with the scope restricted to PLC runtime ports 851-859. It implicitly separates itself from the symbol-based ads_write/ads_write_many by emphasizing 'raw' and index-group addressing, but never names a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'PLC runtime ports (851-859) only' is a real domain constraint that tells the agent when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick ads_write_raw over ads_write, ads_write_many, or ads_read_raw, so usage is only implied rather than directed.

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