Set Powerwall operation mode to manage energy flow. Choose self-consumption, backup, autonomous, or scheduler and adjust backup reserve percentage to optimize battery usage.
Set operation mode (self_consumption, backup, autonomous, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | Operation mode: self_consumption, backup, autonomous, scheduler | |
| backup_reserve_percent | No | Backup reserve percentage (0-100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation ('Set') but does not describe side effects, whether a mode change is persistent, required authentication, or how backup_reserve_percent interacts with modes. Significant behavioral context is missing.
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 a single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded. The trailing 'etc.' is vague and unhelpful since the enum has only four values, but the overall length is appropriate.
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 simple setter with two parameters, the description plus schema is mostly adequate, but there is no output schema and no note about response behavior, error conditions, or the relationship between mode and backup_reserve_percent. The tool would benefit from stating that backup_reserve_percent is relevant in backup mode.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond listing some enum values; it does not explain backup_reserve_percent or when it applies, but the schema already documents both parameters.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('operation mode'), and lists representative values. It clearly differentiates from the many powerwall_get_* siblings, especially powerwall_get_operation, by indicating a write/change action.
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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Set' and the mode values, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention that reading current mode should use powerwall_get_operation, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.