set_charging_allowed

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, and it does. It reveals the non-interrupting behavior, the lack of a local-network method to stop active charging, and the refusal condition when no scheduled windows exist. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that prevent misuse and give the agent an accurate model of the tool's effects.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary purpose appears in the first sentence, and the following sentence delivers two important caveats. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple boolean setter with only one required parameter, the description is complete. It states the core behavior, the important side-effect (no interruption of in-progress sessions), the failure precondition, and the network limitation. No output schema exists, but for a set operation this is not a significant gap; the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, with the schema already clearly documenting 'allowed' as 'true to permit charging, false to block new sessions' and 'charger' as optional when only one is configured. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Allows or blocks charging outside the scheduled windows.' It further clarifies scope by stating that it 'governs whether a session may begin,' which distinguishes it from other control tools that adjust limits or schedules. Even without naming a sibling, an agent can unambiguously separate this from set_home_power_limit, set_charger_current_limit, and the schedule-related tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use context: it only affects new sessions and 'does NOT interrupt charging already in progress.' It also discloses that the charger refuses the change unless at least one scheduled window exists, which is a critical precondition. This tells the agent exactly when the tool is valid and when another approach would be needed, while also noting that no local-network alternative exists for interrupting in-progress charging.

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