set_target_ip

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real value: it discloses the persistence target (.lss) and the preservation semantics ('surgical edit, other settings preserved'). It does not say whether the change takes effect immediately, requires a redeploy/restart, or needs any permission, which are meaningful gaps for a config mutation.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the trigger condition and alternative. Every clause earns its place; nothing is restated from the schema.

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 4-optional-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is preserved, and when to use it. What is missing is the activation story — whether the edited .lss requires a deploy or PLC reconnect for the new target to take effect — which matters given siblings like deploy_solution and control_plc.

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 100%, so each parameter (ip, port, ssltls, station) is already documented including the port default and the 'omit to leave unchanged' behavior for ssltls. The description adds only the alternative of per-call connection strings, which is contextual rather than parameter-level, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Update the target IP/port/SSL of a station in its .lss', with the scope narrowed by '(surgical edit, other settings preserved)'. It is clear what changes and what does not. It never names a sibling tool, so differentiation from tools like apply_project_changes or deploy_solution is only implied.

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?

'Use when a station moved networks' gives an explicit trigger condition, and 'connection strings can also be passed per call' points at an alternative approach. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool, so it stops short of full routing clarity.

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