update_vehicle_makeRename or rescope a custom vehicle make.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| make | Yes | ||
| teamId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| list | No | ||
| tool | Yes | TuneWorks MCP tool name that produced this result. | |
| user | No | ||
| setup | No | ||
| status | Yes | Result status such as ok, created, updated, sent, auth_required, or confirmation_required. | |
| session | No | ||
| tracker | No | ||
| vehicle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds little beyond restating a mutation: it never explains what 'rescope' actually changes, whether renaming affects existing vehicles referencing the make, or what permissions are required.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity here borders on under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive mutation with three fully undocumented parameters and a vague 'rescope' concept, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently.
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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for three parameters. 'Rename' loosely implies the 'make' parameter and 'rescope' loosely implies 'teamId', but the 'id' parameter is unaddressed and no format or constraint detail is added.
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 pair ('rename or rescope') and resource ('custom vehicle make'), which distinguishes it from the sibling create_vehicle_make and delete_vehicle_make. It is clear what the tool acts on, though 'rescope' is left undefined.
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?
No indication of when to use this tool versus create_vehicle_make, delete_vehicle_make, or update_vehicle. No prerequisites or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.