write_plc_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool opens a connection, writes all values, then closes it. However, it does not discuss error handling (e.g., what if a channel doesn't exist?), atomicity, or effects on existing values. The description is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 only two sentences long, each serving a clear purpose: stating the overall operation and providing a key formatting detail. No unnecessary information is included, and the most important aspects are front-loaded.

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?

Given the moderate complexity of the tool (writing to PLC channels) and complete schema coverage, the description adequately covers the main process. However, it misses details about behavior under error conditions (e.g., non-existent channels) or the return value (none expected). Still, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the core functionality.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the channel format ('ObjectName.ChannelName') and providing context for optional parameters ('Omit to use the selected project' / 'project's saved connection'). This supplements the schema descriptions effectively.

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 states 'Write values to channels on a running PLC', which clearly identifies the verb (write) and resource (values to channels on a PLC). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'read_plc_values' by describing a write operation. The mention of opening and closing connections adds specificity.

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 implies when to use the tool (to write values) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., PLC must be running) or comparison to sibling tools like 'read_plc_values'. The context is clear but not prescriptive.

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