charger.apply_profile

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that dry-run is default and live write requires a token, hinting at safety. However, it does not specify outcomes on validation failure, or any destructive aspects beyond 'apply'.

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 with two sentences, but the structure could be improved by separating validation and application steps for clarity.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention return values, error states, or post-conditions. The complex nested 'profile' object lacks behavioral hints, leaving the agent guessing about validation outcomes.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain parameters beyond 'slot' and 'token'. It mentions 'dry-run' but not how it affects behavior, and does not clarify 'profile' vs 'profile_id' or the meaning of 'confirmation_token'.

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 validates and applies a profile to a slot. It distinguishes the action from validation-only tools like 'charger.validate_profile', but does not explicitly differentiate from 'mc3000_apply_profile' which may be related but in a different namespace.

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 for dry-run by default and live write with a token, but does not provide explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'charger.validate_profile' for validation-only scenarios.

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