visu_project

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

The description states that apply_changes 'loads the project, runs operations, saves, and closes' and that download 'pushes the project to an HMI without saving content changes', which are useful behavioral details. However, with no annotations provided, it doesn't cover side effects like whether operations are atomic, whether text list revisions auto-increment, or whether a failed operation leaves the project partially modified.

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 description is a single compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and gives the key scoping constraint (apply_changes vs download) before the alternative instruction. It is dense but not bloated given the tool's complexity, and the second sentence adds critical guidance without excess.

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 highly complex tool with a large operations enum and 6 parameters, the description gives the essential action-level guidance and the main alternative path (direct file editing). It lacks details on output/return behavior and error cases, and the schema's nested operation objects carry most of the per-operation semantics, so the description alone is not fully self-sufficient but is reasonable given the schema coverage.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the top-level description adds value by clarifying the key action parameter ('apply_changes' vs 'download'), the lvp_path auto-detection behavior, and the connection string format with the 'TCPIP:' prefix. It also explains that flags are download-only, which is a semantic distinction not fully obvious from the schema alone.

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 names a specific tool (VISUDesigner engine) and a clear verb ('Run VISUDesigner engine operations'), then enumerates the operation categories. It distinguishes itself from direct dashboard JSON editing via the last sentence, though it doesn't name a specific sibling tool.

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 explicitly contrasts with 'direct dashboard JSON editing' by saying 'for direct dashboard JSON editing, edit the files in the project directly.' This provides a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use boundary, though it doesn't list alternative sibling tools by name.

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