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

With only readOnlyHint=false supplied, the description carries the burden and does so richly: fuel cost per tick, output added to station power, capacity caps (plant capacity or 20), and every termination condition (disconnect, undock, ship switch, 360 ticks, fuel below 10%, generator offline). It also notes scaling from hull bonuses, Engineering, and crew, and that get_action_log records fuel burned and power delivered.

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?

The action and its prerequisites are front-loaded in the first sentence, with mechanics following. It is a dense single block with a long parenthetical, but nearly every clause (fuel burn, timer, caps, scaling) conveys operational information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description covers cost, duration, termination, capacity limits, and where results are logged (get_action_log). For a two-parameter stateful toggle, nothing material is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description only reinforces the 'connect again to restart the timer' behavior, which the schema already states for the disconnect flag, so it adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Connect your docked ship's field generator to the station grid, or disconnect it.' That is far more informative than the bare name 'generator' and makes the toggle semantics unambiguous; no sibling tool overlaps this behavior.

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?

The prerequisites are explicit ('Requires docking at any player or empire station and an operational field_generator module'), which tells the agent exactly when the call is legal. It does not name an alternative tool for the undocked case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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