configure_cpu_ethernet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool updates every stored copy, triggers a project-archive round-trip that reloads and marks the project UNSAVED, and can fail the build if certain service flags are disabled. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter meanings, a failure condition, side effects with follow-up actions, and an alternative tool. It is well-structured and front-loads the core configuration scope.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential information: parameter usage, side effects, failure conditions, and alternative routing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the aftermath.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of ip_a/ip_b/ip_d, the main IP/subnet/gateway, and the service flag semantics ('-1 = leave unchanged, 0 = disable, 1 = enable') along with defaults. This fully covers the parameter meanings.

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 clearly states the verb 'Configure' and the resource 'M580 CPU's embedded Ethernet', listing specific items (main IP/subnet/gateway, HSBY addresses, service flags). It immediately distinguishes itself from set_dtm_address by naming the alternative, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It explicitly says when to use set_dtm_address instead ('For a slave device's gateway-domain warning'), and provides context on the CRA requirement and the need to run build_project/save_project after the side-effect round-trip. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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