Plecs Protect

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing irreversibility-after-save, the confirm=true gate, idempotency, return value 0, and that it mutates only the in-memory model (persisted on save). That is exactly the extra risk context a destructive tool needs.

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 danger and the confirm requirement front-loaded before the verification details. The 'returns 0' clause is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing else is padding.

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 two-parameter destructive tool, the definition covers risk, prerequisite, scope of effect, and idempotency; return values are covered by the output schema. The only missing element an agent would want is the subsystem path format/root convention.

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 compensate: it explains that confirm must be set to true and that the call takes exactly one subsystem path. It does not state the expected path syntax (e.g. Model/Subsystem form), which is the remaining gap.

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 ('Make a subsystem non-viewable/non-modifiable'), which is a distinct capability from the mutation siblings like plecs_model_edit or plecs_set. An agent can tell immediately this is a protection operation, not a generic edit.

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?

Gives clear gating conditions: irreversible, requires confirm=true, and affects only the open model until saved. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g. use plecs_set for reversible property changes) or say when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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