set_soc_limit

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

The description discloses that the tool 'Requires confirmation for write operations,' which adds a key behavioral trait beyond the raw schema. However, it does not clarify how confirmation is provided (e.g., via the confirmed parameter), what happens if not confirmed, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries a heavier burden, but this is only partially fulfilled.

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 description is extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values are presumably covered), the tool has multiple parameters and a confirmation mechanism that is under-specified. The description lacks vital context about how to execute a write (setting confirmed=true?), value ranges for soc_limit, and differences from sibling set tools. This leaves the agent uncertain about safe and correct invocation.

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 must explain the parameters. It implies that soc_limit is a percentage, but instance and confirmed are entirely undocumented. The confirmation requirement hints at the confirmed parameter's purpose, but the mechanism and constraints are not explained.

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 'Set battery SoC limit percentage' clearly identifies the action (set) and the resource (battery SoC limit), and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_battery_soc or set_charge_current_limit. The purpose is unambiguous and directly maps to the tool name.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or exclusions beyond a vague confirmation requirement. It does not mention that this is for adjusting battery state-of-charge limits in contrast to other charge-related settings.

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