Edit a ladder network in a FATEK .ldr file by replacing, inserting, or deleting logic steps and coils, saving changes to a new file while preserving untouched records.
Edit in a NEW file; index 0 is N000. Preserve untouched raw records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| index | Yes | ||
| network | No | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| output_name | Yes | ||
| allow_unverified | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is already covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: edits land in a NEW file via output_name and untouched raw records are preserved, consistent with the non-destructive hint. It still omits what output_name collisions do and any verification requirement around allow_unverified.
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 short clauses with no filler, but the phrasing is cryptic and under-specified rather than genuinely concise; the key idea (new-file output) is buried after the edit statement.
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 mutation tool with nested $defs (Network/Step/Contact/Coil) and a 6-param schema with zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the operational meaning of operation/network/allow_unverified is absent.
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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies 'index' (0 is N000) and the destination semantics of output_name, but says nothing about path, operation, network, or allow_unverified, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.
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 the verb 'Edit' and implies the resource (a network), plus a concrete detail that index 0 is N000. However it never says what a 'network' is in this system and offers no differentiation from siblings like create_ldr, read_ldr, or validate_ladder, leaving the agent to infer scope.
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?
'Edit in a NEW file' hints that the original is not overwritten, which is a useful usage constraint, but there is no statement of when to choose this over the many sibling tools or any prerequisite (e.g. validated ladder). No when-not guidance at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.