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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the physical prerequisite (cable connected) and the valid charge-limit envelope (50–100%). It stops short of covering permissions or the effect of combining actions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core actions first, the precondition in parentheses, and the limit range at the end. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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 no output schema and no annotations explaining returns, the description should clarify the remaining parameters (account, veiculos) and what happens when acao and limite_percent are combined. It covers the charging behavior adequately but leaves gaps for an agent to guess at the multi-vehicle targeting.

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 meaningfully documents two of four parameters (acao values, limite_percent range 50–100) but says nothing about account or veiculos, leaving half the inputs undocumented.

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 names a specific verb set and resource: start/stop charging plus adjusting the charge limit. It is unambiguously the charging-control tool within the tesla_* family, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as tesla_estado, which could plausibly report charge state.

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?

It states one useful precondition – the cable must be connected – and implicit context (use it when you want to charge or change the limit). However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over tesla_estado or tesla_ir_supercharger, nor on when not to use it.

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