kia_set_charge_limits

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true), the description reveals critical behavioral traits: the write is verified by re-reading evc/gts and comparing, the tool makes NO network call without confirm:true, and omitting a plug type drops that target. These details are not inferable from annotations or schema and are essential for safe use.

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 concise and information-dense, with four sentences that each convey a distinct critical fact: purpose, verification, replacement semantics, and dry-run behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids repetition or filler.

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 the rich schema and annotations, the description covers the essential context: how targets are replaced, the verification readback, and the dry-run mode. It does not explicitly mention authentication prerequisites, but that is implicitly handled by the sibling login tools and the schema's reference to vehicleKey from the vehicle-list tool, so it remains adequately complete for an agent to call the tool 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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), including the meaning of confirm, verify, and the replacement behavior of targets. The description reinforces key points like 'Send BOTH plug types' and 'dry-run preview', but adds little new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's action: 'Set the target state of charge per plug type', which is specific and distinguishes it from read-only tools like kia_charge_targets. It also names the underlying API resource (`evc/sts`), leaving no ambiguity about what is being set.

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 provides clear operational guidance: 'Send BOTH plug types — the list replaces the stored one' and explains the safety behavior of dry-run without confirm:true. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the write vs. read distinction is implied by the action verb and sibling tool names, so usage context is mostly clear.

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