xae_boot_project

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety baseline is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that setting activate_after_generate=true escalates the call to destructive-class, a condition the static annotation cannot express. It stops short of explaining the confirm_token flow or permission prerequisites for that escalation.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and places the risk condition after it. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical is terse enough to require rereading.

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 no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is how confirm_token is obtained and what plc_project_path must point at, gaps that matter for a mutation tool with a destructive escalation path.

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%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does, mapping 'Autostart', 'GenerateBootProject' and 'activate_after_generate' to their parameters. The critical confirm_token and the required plc_project_path are never explained, leaving the destructive path's mechanics 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Boot project settings') and names the settings it writes (Autostart, GenerateBootProject), so the agent knows this mutates boot configuration. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like xae_activate_configuration or xae_deploy, leaving the boundary to inference.

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 provides one conditional rule ('no activate unless activate_after_generate=true, which is then destructive-class'), which implies when the risky path applies. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance against the many xae_* siblings.

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