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

Adds concrete consequences beyond the annotations: 'Deja el punto fuera de servicio unos minutos y aborta las sesiones en curso' (leaves the point out of service for a few minutes and aborts ongoing sessions). It also defines the behavioral difference between Soft and Hard resets. Consistent with destructiveHint=true; no contradiction.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler: the verb+resource is front-loaded, the mode semantics are given, and the safety warning closes the description. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, both modes, full impact (out of service, aborted sessions), and the precondition check — strong for a destructive command with only two parameters. It does not describe the expected response or confirmation, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap.

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 100% and the description adds value by explaining what the reset_type values actually do ('Soft reinicia el software y Hard es un corte completo'), which the schema does not. This goes beyond the schema's bare default note.

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 and resource: 'Reinicia el cargador (OCPP Reset)', and explains the two reset modes (Soft vs Hard). The operation is clearly distinct from siblings like parar_carga (stops a session) and cambiar_disponibilidad (changes availability), so an agent can tell them apart.

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 a clear precondition: 'comprueba antes que no haya ninguna activa' (check no active sessions before resetting), which tells the agent when it is safe to invoke the tool. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tool to use for that check (e.g., listar_sesiones or estado_en_vivo), so no explicit alternatives are given.

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