plc_ide_open_copy

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that a Windows UAC prompt is required, that the call returns the actual OpenFromFile callback, that duplicate projects are refused, that no overwrite or delete occurs, and that it does not compile. These are non-obvious behavioral facts an agent needs, and the no-overwrite/no-delete claim is consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then prerequisites, then behavioral guarantees. No filler; every clause (UAC, duplicate refusal, no overwrite/delete, no compile) carries 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 shape need not be explained, and the description covers the key operational caveats (UAC, duplicates, non-destructive, no compilation). What is missing is the failure behavior around expected_revision and the distinction from plc_ide_open_existing / plc_open_project, which matters for a tool that opens something.

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 coverage is only 50% — expected_revision is documented in the schema, but project_id has no description anywhere. The description mentions "committed revision" and "verified copy", which loosely gestures at expected_revision's optimistic-concurrency role, but it never explains either parameter or what a revision mismatch would do.

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 uses specific verbs ("prepare a verified copy", "open") tied to a concrete resource (the committed revision) and names the target host (Sysmac WCF). The "copy of the committed revision" phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from opening an existing project, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the copy-of-committed-revision framing suggests this is for a disposable/verified working copy rather than the live project, and "Requires Windows UAC" plus "duplicate projects remain refused" flag prerequisites. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no alternative tool is named.

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