plc_delete_pou

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: the operation is staged rather than immediate, it has explicit refusal preconditions, archive members survive as unreferenced data, external consumers are not acquired, and a rebuild is needed before use. These are non-obvious side effects and post-conditions an agent could not infer from the annotations or 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the constraints, with no filler. Some phrasing is jargon-dense ('observed source/declaration references', 'External consumers are not acquired'), which costs a little immediate clarity but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers preconditions, side effects, and required follow-up (Sysmac rebuild) for a destructive staged mutation. The remaining gap is the undocumented pou_id and transaction_id parameters, which the description leaves entirely to the thin schema.

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 only 33% — only expected_revision is documented — and the description adds essentially nothing about pou_id or transaction_id. The word 'Stage' hints that transaction_id ties to the transaction workflow, but the agent gets no guidance on POU identifier format or how the revision guard behaves.

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 and resource: 'Stage removal of one POU from the OEM project tree.' The word 'Stage' and the POU scope distinguish it from sibling delete tools such as plc_delete_variable and plc_delete_data_type without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 concrete when-not conditions: it 'Refuses assigned Programs, observed source/declaration references and incomplete controller source or DataTypes,' which tells the agent when the call will fail. It also signals the staging workflow and that a Sysmac rebuild is required afterwards, though it does not name alternative tools or explain how to resolve the refusal cases.

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