Plecs Sign

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

The annotation already declares destructiveHint=true, and the description is consistent with it, spelling out that the file is modified in place and that the operation is an append. It omits whether the file is backed up, whether the operation is idempotent if a signature already exists, and whether a license or running PLECS instance is needed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the mutation caveat in parentheses – no wasted words. Slightly terse given the risks of a destructive write, but structurally sound.

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?

The presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, and the destructive hint covers the safety profile. Still, for a file-mutating tool with an undocumented parameter and no prerequisites stated, an agent lacks enough to call it confidently in unfamiliar contexts.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate, and it only clarifies that file_path points to a 'model file'. It says nothing about accepted formats, absolute vs. relative paths, or required file extensions.

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?

A specific verb ('append') plus resource ('PLECS demo signature to a model file') that makes the effect unmistakable. It does not, however, contrast itself with closely related siblings such as plecs_protect or plecs_model_edit, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would sign a model rather than protect or edit it, or whether signing is required before simulation.

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