trigger_pd_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the physical side effect (charger raises VBUS) and a genuine safety warning about sensitive loads. It omits permissions, failure behavior for an invalid position, and reversibility, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core request semantics and followed by the effect/safety note. No redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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 hardware-mutating, three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the essential effect and safety warning. However, current_ma semantics and the expected outcome/return behavior are missing, leaving a real gap for 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that position is 1-based and that voltage_mv is required for PPS/AVS PDOs, but current_ma is entirely unexplained and no value ranges or units beyond the name hints are given.

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?

States a specific action (request a PDO at a given position) and its physical effect (raise VBUS on the meter's output). The 'PDO position (1-based)' framing distinguishes it reasonably from trigger_pd_source_caps or trigger_fast_charge, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides one concrete precondition ('disconnect sensitive loads first') and a conditional hint ('voltage_mv is needed for PPS/AVS PDOs'), which is useful. But it gives no guidance on when to choose this over trigger_fast_charge, trigger_pd_source_caps, or trigger_raw.

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