xae_placeholder_freeze

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and the description adds real behavioral context by explaining the '*' version-pinning semantics. However, it says nothing about the confirm_token parameter, which implies a confirmation workflow (a tc_request_confirmation sibling exists), nor about re-freeze behavior or permissions.

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-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause adds substantive meaning about version pinning and target format. The redundant '(FreezePlaceholder)' restatement and the compressed target notation are minor wastes.

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 core mutation semantics are covered. But for a write tool with an unexplained confirm_token and an ambiguous relationship between the target string and the two separate parameters, an agent could not reliably construct a confirmed call from this alone.

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 carries the full burden. It explains placeholder (omitted = all, '*' = all), but completely omits confirm_token, and its 'target=<iec project path>:<placeholder>' notation conflates the separate plc_project_path and placeholder parameters into one string, leaving the actual argument mapping ambiguous.

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 ('Freeze a placeholder') and immediately defines what freezing means: pinning at the currently resolved version so '*' stops following newer installed versions. That distinguishes it in spirit from xae_placeholder_add/resolve, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

The 'all when placeholder is left out' clause implies the bulk-freeze path, and the effect (no longer following newer versions) hints at when to use it. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the sibling tools that add or resolve placeholders.

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