plc_ide_rebuild_active

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing that UAC elevation is required, that the timeout is unknown and the operation is never retried, that returns are correlated completion/native result/compiler diagnostics, and that no files are saved and no PLC connection is made. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before firing a non-idempotent, non-destructive write.

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 tight sentences, each carrying a distinct load: scope, precondition, elevation and failure semantics, and negative side effects. The scoping condition is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 an output schema present, the return-value summary is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the definition still covers elevation, retry policy, and side-effect boundaries. The remaining gap is interpretive help for the required identifiers, which the definition leaves to the schemaless parameters.

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 carries the burden. It does explain the identity triple (process start, solution, controller) that three of the four parameters encode, but process_id is only obliquely covered and no format or value conventions (e.g. UTC timestamp shape, ID form) are given, leaving the schema largely uninformative for a required-argument tool.

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?

Names a specific verb (rebuild) and a precisely scoped resource (the active offline NX controller), plus the conditional gate on process/solution/controller identity. It also anchors itself relative to the sibling plc_ide_runtime_status, so an agent can tell what this does and what it is not.

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 an explicit precondition for invocation: identities must still match runtime_status, which tells the agent to probe state first. It also lists exclusions (no import, save, or PLC connection), but it never names a sibling alternative for a full/unconditional rebuild case, so routing is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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