xae_placeholder_resolve

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: empty or '*' version means newest, distributor is auto-filled from installed libraries, and the resolution is re-checked after the call. It omits the confirm_token/authorization requirement, which is the biggest behavioral unknown for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences with real content and the action is front-loaded, but the awkward line break, dangling parenthetical, and the orphaned 'target=...' clause make it read like pasted internal notes rather than a clean specification.

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 explanation is not required, but for a 6-parameter mutation tool the description leaves two parameters (confirm_token, plc_project_path) entirely undefined and doesn't explain the confirmation workflow implied by a sibling tc_request_confirmation. That is not enough to call this safely the first time.

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 carry all parameter meaning, and it only partially does. It explains version and distributor defaults well, but says nothing about confirm_token or plc_project_path, and the 'target=<iec project path>:<placeholder>=<library>' fragment describes a string format that does not correspond to any parameter in the schema, which risks confusing the caller.

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: sets the effective resolution target for a placeholder, and names the underlying API call (SetEffectiveResolution). It is distinguishable from xae_placeholder_add and xae_placeholder_freeze by implication, but never names or contrasts with them 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus xae_placeholder_add (declare a placeholder) or xae_placeholder_freeze (pin the resolution), nor on prerequisites such as the confirmation flow implied by the confirm_token parameter. The agent must infer the lifecycle position of this tool.

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