tc_reload_config

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation; the description goes beyond that by splitting settings into those applied live versus those merely reported pending a restart. This is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot express. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. malformed toml), keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads verb and resource, then lists affected settings compactly and finishes with the deferred settings plus the alternative tool. No sentence is 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?

With an output schema present, zero parameters, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining needed context: what is reloaded, what takes effect immediately, and what is deliberately deferred.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty argument schema.

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 and resource ('Re-read twincat_mcp.toml (and TCMCP_* env)') plus the key constraint 'without a restart'. It also enumerates the setting classes it affects, which distinguishes it clearly from restart-oriented siblings like xae_restart_twincat.

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?

Explicitly names what it does not apply and routes the agent to the alternative ('mode/max_mode (use tc_set_mode)'), and the 'without a restart' framing implies the trigger condition. It stops short of a fully explicit when/when-not statement, but the alternative routing is present.

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