plc_ide_export_active

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it warns that a native Sysmac prompt may appear, that the export follows native command rules, that it refuses file mode, AutoConnect, changed identities, suppressed saves, persistence IO errors and existing output paths (consistent with idempotentHint=false), and that it publishes only a readable SMC2 copy with no PLC connection or download. This is exactly the kind of side-effect, failure-mode and side-channel disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and prerequisites before the constraint and refusal lists, with no filler sentences. The third sentence packs a long refusal enumeration whose items would read faster as a list, but each clause carries real behavioral 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?

For a five-required-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers provenance, destination constraints, prompt behavior, refusal modes and the resulting artifact, which is close to complete. The remaining gap is the attestation pairing semantics between process_id and process_started_utc, which the agent must guess.

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 0% schema description coverage the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does source four of the five values (process identity from runtime_status, solution_id and storage_folder from list_projects) plus hard constraints on destination. It stops short of format details such as the timestamp shape for process_started_utc or how process_id and process_started_utc must be paired for attestation.

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 a specific verb+resource pair ('Save and export the attested active normal imported solution') and names the mechanism ('pinned Sysmac runtime'), which scopes it well below the generic plc_export_project. It never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary from 'active' versus file-based export.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions and value provenance: process identity from runtime_status, solution GUID and storage_folder from list_projects, and a destination that must be a new local SMC2 path outside the persistence folder on the same drive. It also enumerates refusal conditions, which functions as a when-not-use list. No named alternative tool is offered for the case where these preconditions fail.

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