xae_pou_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and safety profile is partly covered. The description adds little beyond the workflow note — it does not say what happens when an object with that name already exists (notable given idempotentHint=true), nor what permissions or prerequisites are required.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the kind enumeration compactly listed. Dense but without filler; the only reason it is not a 5 is the long inline enumeration which is functional rather than wasteful.

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?

For a 10-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers only 'kind' and a workflow hint. With no annotation or schema text for the remaining nine parameters and no statement about conflict handling or prerequisites, an agent lacks enough to call this reliably beyond the trivial case.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only documents the valid values for 'kind' (valuable, since the schema has no enum for it) and leaves parent_path, name, access, extends, implements, language, declaration, return_type and implementation entirely unexplained.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Create a PLC object under a folder/POU', and enumerates the exact kinds it can create, which is far more specific than the bare name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like xae_tree_create_child or xae_pou_set, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Optional code is set after creation' implies a create-then-set workflow and hints at the existence of xae_pou_set, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no guidance against the overlapping tree/child creation tool. Usage is only implied.

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