xae_deploy

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false): it explains the confirmation model, the fail-fast-on-build-error behavior, the target-mismatch refusal condition, and precisely defines the success state via steps.verify.transition_by ('poll', 'mode_change', 'witness'). This is substantive behavioral disclosure an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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 the pipeline and then the caveats; every clause carries meaning. The 'Done =' sentence and steps.verify.transition_by jargon are dense but necessary and not redundant.

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-value exposition is not required, yet the description still usefully defines the success proof. Annotations already declare the destructive profile. The remaining gap is that two parameters (skip_build, plc_project_path) and how to obtain a valid confirm_token are left unexplained.

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% for all four parameters. The description implicitly covers confirm_token ('one confirmation') and allow_target_mismatch ('refuses when the XAE target and the ADS target differ'), but says nothing about skip_build or plc_project_path, so it only partially compensates 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 composite action ('Save → build → (boot project autostart on) → activate → restart, in one call') for a named resource. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like xae_build, xae_activate_configuration and xae_restart_twincat by being the orchestrator of the whole chain.

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?

Gives concrete use conditions and constraints: stops at the first build error, one confirmation covers all steps, and it refuses when the XAE and ADS targets differ. It doesn't explicitly name a single-step alternative for when you only want part of the pipeline, but the composite framing implies the boundary well.

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