hcl_stage_plan

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description states the mutation is confined to a separate copy, that source devices/notes are replaced in that copy, and that transcripts are kept out of startup configs. Those are concrete behavioral facts an agent could not infer from the schema. It still omits failure modes and how the stage is later applied.

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 short sentences, but they are telegraphic fragments ("Replaces source devices/notes in the copy.") and rely on unexplained jargon like "model-to-scene map" and "real source models." The key constraint about port_map arrives mid-description rather than up front.

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?

No output schema exists and the input is a large nested topology plan, so the description should say what a successful stage produces and where it lands. It conveys the negative claims well (nothing is deployed or powered) but leaves the result artifact, error conditions, and the role of project_path/stage_name undefined.

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 full burden, yet it explains only port_map ("every linked CLI port needs an explicit model-to-scene map"). It says nothing about project_path, stage_name, the structure of plan, or idempotency_key — the last being especially notable since annotations declare idempotentHint=false.

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 gives a verb and resource ("Compile a validated plan into a separate .net project"), but "compile" and "stage" are used loosely and the phrasing is unusual enough that an agent cannot easily tell this apart from siblings like hcl_stage_copy or hcl_full_build. The scope statement (staged result claims no GUI/VM/power/deploy) is more informative than the core purpose sentence.

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?

"Compile a validated plan" implies hcl_validate_plan should run first, and the port_map sentence hints at a precondition, but neither is stated as an explicit prerequisite or as an alternative to other staging tools. The negative claims (no GUI open, no deployment, no connectivity) sketch the boundary of what this tool is not, which is useful but indirect guidance.

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