pvsyst_create_peak_shaving_variant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so extensively: dry_run writes nothing, execution creates exactly one NEW VC and never edits the source PRJ/VC, store locking/path checks/read-back verification/no-overwrite semantics are reused, and unsupported sources stop rather than being overwritten. It also explicitly discloses many non-goals, including that it does not change grid power limitation or power factor and does not prove consumption of the created variant.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is extremely dense and runs to several hundred words in long paragraphs, mixing actionable rules with deep native-profile details such as root Flags values and exact strategy strings. Much of this may be necessary safety context, but the lack of structure and the volume make it hard to scan for an agent that mainly needs the mode discriminator, dry-run behavior, and parameter meanings.

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 rich on safety, eligibility, and non-goals, but it omits what the preview or creation returns and does not fully define all seven inputs. It is more complete than average, yet still leaves gaps that matter to 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 compensate for seven parameters. It gives useful semantics for discharge.mode, after_sunset vs hour_window, start_hour/end_hour bounds (0..23), and dry_run, but project, source_variant, new_variant, and add_utf8_bom are only implied or discussed vaguely as 'existing display-name and BOM rules'. It partially compensates but leaves several required string parameters unexplained.

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: preview or create a NEW variant that switches the native PeakShaving discharge strategy. It clearly identifies the niche (PeakShaving discharge strategy variant), which effectively distinguishes it from generic variant-creation or update tools in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 describes the supported subset and blocking conditions (e.g. no load, P50/P90, saved horizon, explicit 3D scene, or module layout), which implies when the tool is applicable. However, it never says when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as pvsyst_update_variant_parameters or pvsyst_create_grid_storage_variant, leaving the choice mostly to inference.

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