grocy_battery_undo_charge

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

Annotations cover mutability and idempotency; the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that the call is a dry-run unless confirm is supplied, which is the main thing an agent must get right. It does not say what state the battery/charge cycle is left in after undo, a minor omission against otherwise solid annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the action stated first and the dry-run safety note last. Nothing is padded or redundant beyond a helpful reinforcement.

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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, this is nearly sufficient: action, endpoint, and confirm-gating are all covered. Only the post-undo result state and the meaning of charge_cycle_id are left implicit.

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?

The confirm parameter's semantics (including that false and string 'true' are rejected) are already fully documented in the schema, and the description only echoes the dry-run point. charge_cycle_id is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the 50% coverage gap partly unaddressed.

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 ('Undo a battery charge cycle') and distinguishes itself cleanly from sibling grocy_battery_charge and the unrelated undo tools (grocy_chore_undo_execution, grocy_task_undo). The endpoint path reinforces the target resource.

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 makes the safe-invocation rule explicit: omit confirm for a dry-run, so the agent knows the default is non-mutating. It does not name when to use undo versus re-charging or which sibling to prefer, but the scope is narrow enough that ambiguity is low.

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