Parking preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: 'nothing is written,' revealing this is a non-persisting preview despite the 'set_' prefix. Beyond that it says nothing about whether the preview is transient, session-scoped, cumulative across calls, or what a call returns, which is a notable gap for a 14-parameter mutation-shaped tool.

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?

It is a single dense sentence that front-loads the most important qualifier ('nothing is written') before the field list. Every clause maps to a parameter area, so little is wasted, though the run-on enumeration is harder to scan than a structured list would be.

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 14-parameter, zero-required tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the topic areas but leaves behavior under-specified: no explanation of how partial calls combine, whether omissions default or persist, or how this relates to sibling preview tools. It is minimally adequate but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description maps several parameters to concepts – layout, 360° side sensors (show360), rear traffic alert (rta/rtaAlert), trailer, obstacles, faults per group, guides and steering, area view side (activeSide). But it omits clear, level, ground, and keepGrey, which are undocumented in both description and schema, consistent with the 50% coverage. It adds real mapping value without fully compensating for the gap.

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 identifies the resource (the parking page preview data) and enumerates the visible aspects, and the parenthetical 'nothing is written' hints at what the tool actually does. However, there is no clear verb – it reads as a noun phrase listing fields rather than stating 'sets/previews the parking page state.' It does not explicitly contrast with get_parking_data or set_preview, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent is left to infer that this should be called instead of get_parking_data when a preview rather than real data is desired, and there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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