mc3000_apply_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'Apply' without disclosing side effects, conflict resolution when both profile_hex and fields are provided, idempotency, or behavior when slots are already running.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the action and key options. No extraneous words.

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 complexity (22 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It does not cover return values, error scenarios, prerequisites, or detailed parameter interactions, leaving significant gaps.

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 low (32%), yet the description adds minimal context beyond what the schema provides. It mentions profile_hex and slot_mask implicitly ('selected slots') but does not explain other 20 parameters, leaving most of the parameter semantics undefined.

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 action 'Apply a profile/program' and mentions two ways to provide the profile (hex from build_profile or direct fields). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like mc3000_build_profile and mc3000_start, though explicit differentiation is missing.

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 gives implicit guidance by offering two methods (profile_hex or direct fields) and mentions optional starting of slots. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings like mc3000_start or charger.apply_profile.

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