pvsyst_create_mv_night_disconnect_variant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: preview writes nothing, execution retains source/snapshot/no-overwrite protections, only the night-disconnect bool and dependent bit change, and all unrelated inputs are inherited. It also discloses blocked cases and clarifies that configuration never claims native consumption.

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 dense but front-loads the core purpose and then layers constraints and safety behavior. Given the complexity, most sentences carry necessary technical information, though the jargon-heavy phrasing and run-on constraint list reduce readability.

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?

For a complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete on preconditions, blocked configurations, inheritance behavior, and preview/write protections. It stops short of explaining what a successful execution or preview returns, which is a remaining 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful hints for key parameters, such as night_disconnect, source/candidate variants, preview/dry-run behavior, and optional name/BOM, but it does not explicitly define all seven parameters or their accepted values, leaving interpretation partly to the schema names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: creating a new VC that changes the recorded MV night switch. It clearly distinguishes this specialized variant from other create-variant siblings through the MV night-disconnect scope and the preview/exclusive-create 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?

It gives substantial usage context: native8.1.6, PV-only single fixed plane/subarray, valid circuit counts, and the recorded single-MV20kV profile are required. It also lists blocked configurations such as HV/multiple transformers, custom loss tables, loads/storage/P50/horizon/active geometry, but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly compare when to use them.

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