set_charge_limit

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

The description discloses one useful behavioral trait ('auto-wakes if asleep'), which is valuable given no annotations are present. However, it does not mention other potentially relevant behaviors such as persistence of the setting, authentication requirements, or error states, leaving some gaps for a mutating tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a relevant behavioral note. Every word 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?

For a simple command tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a key behavior (auto-wake), and the schema fully documents all parameters. It lacks some deeper context like return value semantics or error handling, but these are not critical for a basic setter command given the rich schema and known sibling context.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for all parameters, including descriptions for percent, vin, max_attempts, and wait_for_completion. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Sets the charge limit percentage'), which clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_charging_amps (which sets current, not limit). It is concise and unambiguous.

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 (set the charge limit whenever you need to change the target charging percentage), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like set_charging_amps, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The auto-wake note is a behavioral hint rather than usage guidance.

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