xae_plc

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

Adds real value beyond the annotations by naming which specific actions are destructive-class (download/reset_cold/reset_origin) versus control-class, and discloses that command names vary by shell version with all candidates tried. This tells the agent more than the blanket destructiveHint flag does.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action list, with no filler. The version-variation and destructive-class notes are compact and earn their place.

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 are covered, but for a destructive PLC-operation tool the confirmation flow is under-specified: the description never explains when confirm_token is required or how to obtain it.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It enumerates the action values, effectively documenting the 'action' parameter, but says nothing about confirm_token, leaving half the parameters unexplained despite it clearly governing destructive operations.

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 ('PLC online actions through the shell') and enumerates the exact actions it performs. An agent can tell what it does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbors like ads_plc_state or xae_deploy.

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 action list implies usage, and the destructive-vs-control classification hints at when caution is needed, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or named alternative. The agent must infer fit from the sibling set on its own.

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