proj_set_code

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the rest of the XML is kept byte-identical, a .bak backup is written, and the object's stale <LineIds> are dropped. These are non-obvious side effects an agent needs to know before invoking.

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 tightly-packed sentences with the action front-loaded, side effects in parentheticals, and the routing rule last. Zero waste.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the file-handling and backup behavior, but leaves the regenerate_lineids/strip_lineids relationship and failure modes unstated.

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 effectively explains strip_lineids via 'drops the object's stale <LineIds>' and implies declaration/implementation/name, but regenerate_lineids and the interaction with strip_lineids are never addressed, leaving a documented 5-param tool only partially covered.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Write declaration/implementation back into the .TcPOU/.TcDUT/.TcGVL file', naming the exact file types affected. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling it is not (xae_pou_set), so an agent can route without opening either 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?

'Use when XAE is closed or for batch edits; otherwise prefer xae_pou_set' gives both the when-to-use condition and the named alternative with its own selecting condition. Explicit and actionable.

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