xae_pou_set

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: edits happen in-place in the live shell, LineIds are kept consistent, and a build is required afterwards — useful context an agent would not get from the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical and the 'Build afterwards' note each carrying distinct value. Nothing is padded or 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 values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description implies the POU must already exist and that a build follows, but omits failure behavior and path format, leaving a small gap.

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 three parameters, so the schema supplies no meaning. The description clarifies that declaration and implementation are the editable payloads and may be set individually or together, but says nothing about the required 'path' parameter or its expected format, leaving the most important parameter undocumented.

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 (replace) acting on a specific resource (declaration and/or implementation text of a POU item), and scopes it with 'inside the live shell (no file round-trip)'. This differentiates it from file-based siblings like proj_set_code, though it does not name an alternative tool 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 phrase 'no file round-trip' implicitly signals when to prefer this over file-editing tools, and 'Build afterwards' gives the required follow-up step. However, no explicit when-not conditions or named alternative tools are given, so usage remains inferred.

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