plc_create_pou

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), it discloses that the POU is only staged, that IDs and models are allocated atomically, that application code and build caches are not copied, and that the result stays unverified until a Sysmac rebuild. That is real behavioral context, though it omits permission/auth requirements and what a failed staging leaves behind.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by inference rules, constraints, and the verification caveat; nothing is redundant. Some phrasing is terse to the point of being cryptic ("Add fresh IDs and models"), which costs a point.

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 transactional, mutation-style staging tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key unknowns: staging vs. commit, inference of POU kind and language, atomic allocation, and post-call verification state. Concurrency behavior on a revision mismatch and error outcomes are left unstated.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description does useful work: it explains template_pou_id as a readable single-section template in the same controller/folder, and constrains definition to fresh declarations plus exactly one ST source or native LD rungs. It adds nothing about transaction_id or expected_revision, leaving half the required parameters to 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Stage a new POU") and scopes it to a readable single-section template in the same controller/folder. "Stage" rather than "create" distinguishes it from commit-style siblings, and the template-source requirement separates it from free-form creation or plc_create_variable.

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 gives clear conditions for use: the source must be a readable single-section template in the same controller/folder, and the caller must supply fresh declarations plus exactly one ST source or native LD rungs. It implies the transaction workflow via transaction_id and the unverified-until-rebuild caveat, but never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one.

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