energy_save_energy_prefs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the mutation (save) and partial update behavior, which adds context. However, it does not mention authorization, rate limits, or side effects, leaving gaps.

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 very concise—one sentence with a parenthetical—and front-loads the purpose and partial update behavior. It is efficient, but could be slightly expanded to include parameter guidance without losing conciseness.

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?

Given four parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what each parameter does or describe the return value, leaving critical gaps for correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It only mentions 'fields you pass' without defining any of the four parameters (e.g., energy_sources, currency). This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it saves Energy Dashboard preferences and specifies the WebSocket endpoint. It also distinguishes from siblings like energy_get_energy_prefs and energy_validate_energy_prefs by implying a write operation.

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 implies usage for updating preferences by noting 'only the fields you pass are sent,' suggesting partial updates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. other energy tools (e.g., get, validate) or provide exclusions.

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