Set available current

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, idempotent and open-world, and 'CHANGES STATE' is consistent with them. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: the rate-limit rule and the server-side refusal that force=true overrides, plus the null-reset semantics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the mutation warning, then the constraint. No filler; every clause carries actionable information.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: state-changing nature, reset behavior, and rate-limit/force interaction. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 covers 67% of parameters, and the one gap is force (boolean, no schema description). The description supplies exactly that missing meaning — force bypasses the server's rate-limit refusal — and reinforces the amps range/reset behavior. It adds value beyond the schema without fully re-documenting it.

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 verb and resource ('set the installation's available charging current in amps (all phases)') and clarifies the null case as a reset to installation max. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pause_charging/resume_charging and get_status, which do different things.

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 real usage context: the 15-minute recommendation and that the server refuses faster changes unless force=true, plus what null does. It does not explicitly route the agent between this tool and pause_charging/resume_charging, so no exclusions or named alternatives are given.

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