Configures passive tree options for a Path of Exile 2 build: set class, ascendancy, weapon mode, and PassiveSpec actions, with connect or reset when changing class with allocated nodes.
Класс, восхождение, набор и оружейный режим через PassiveSpec; изменение класса с узлами требует connect или reset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| spec | No | ||
| class | No | ||
| reset | No | ||
| compare | No | ||
| connect | No | ||
| ascendancy | No | ||
| specAction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as non-read-only and destructive, and the description usefully adds the precondition that class changes with allocated nodes require `connect` or `reset`. It still never states what data is lost when `reset` is triggered or when specAction=delete is used, which is a notable gap for a destructiveHint=true 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?
The definition is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is telegraphic and verbless, making the primary action hard to parse. Front-loading exists in the sense that affected options come first, though the key constraint is buried after a semicolon.
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 9-parameter, destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description is far too thin: most parameters and the spec-management lifecycle (new/clone/rename/delete) are undocumented, and there is no description of the outcome or state changes.
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?
With 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry full semantic load, yet it only glosses class, ascendancy, spec, mode, connect and reset. The `name`, `compare` and especially the four-valued `specAction` enum (new/clone/rename/delete) are completely 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?
The description lists affected build options (class, ascendancy, set, weapon mode via PassiveSpec) but omits a clear action verb, so it is unclear whether the tool sets, switches, or generates these options. It hints at the resource domain but gives no explicit differentiation from siblings such as pob_tree_action.
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?
One genuine usage constraint is stated: changing class while tree nodes are allocated requires `connect` or `reset`. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus pob_tree_action or pob_set_config, and no prerequisites for the other operations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.