xae_activate_configuration

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety class is known. The description still adds real value beyond them by specifying what is overwritten (the boot project on the IPC) and that a restart must follow. It does not state permission requirements or reversibility, so 4 rather than 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence before the follow-up instruction. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 consequence plus restart sequencing are covered. However, the confirm_token parameter — plausibly a required confirmation gate for a destructive operation — is entirely unexplained, and 'current target' is never defined, leaving a real gap for a mutation tool.

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% for the single confirm_token parameter, and the description never mentions it. For a destructive-class tool whose only parameter is apparently a confirmation gate, an agent is left guessing its format and purpose. The description should have compensated for the coverage gap.

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 action ('ActivateConfiguration') on a specific target ('the current target') and immediately names the consequence ('overwrites the boot project on the IPC'). An agent understands the operation without opening the schema. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby xae_boot_project or xae_deploy siblings, so it stops 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?

Provides a concrete sequencing rule: 'Follow with xae_restart_twincat,' which tells the agent the activation is not a terminal step. It also labels the operation 'Destructive-class,' which is a usage warning. It does not say when NOT to use it or name alternatives to activation, so no 5.

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