IvedaAI: EngineProfile

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds value by explaining the response envelope (status, truncated, timedOut) and clarifying a potentially confusing behavior: the GET endpoint returns the field under a different key, and PUT leaves omitted fields untouched. This prevents misinterpretation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 structured as a clear list of endpoints with parameters and notes. It is dense but each line conveys necessary information. The note about the GET field mapping is valuable and justifies its length. It could be slightly more compact, but the organization aids scanning. No fluff.

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?

With six operations and many parameters, the description covers the essential details: endpoints, required fields, query params, and a behavioral caveat. It references ivedaai_get_schema for full field definitions, which is a sensible pointer. It does not document error responses or authentication, but these are likely standard across the API. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the 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 input schema only has generic query/path/body containers with 100% coverage, but the description fills in the actual query parameter names, types, and required fields for each endpoint (e.g., nameContains, engineModelIds, ainvrId). It also indicates that the body requires 'name' and directs to ivedaai_get_schema for full field details. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly names the resource (EngineProfile) and lists all six operations (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, default). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ivedaai_camera or ivedaai_engine_model. The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for each endpoint including query parameters and body requirements. It also includes an important usage note about the GET field name difference (engineModelIds vs engineModelId) and that PUT leaves omitted fields alone, which helps the agent choose and invoke operations correctly. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this tool when managing engine profiles' or contrast with alternatives, though this is implied by the resource name.

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