drive

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive motion command, and the description adds meaningful behavior on top: the self-expiring 5 s lease, the renewal path via reins_renew, and the owner-confirmation gate that surfaces as a pending_confirmation return. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint alone.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, lease expiry, renewal alternative, confirmation outcome), with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully names the pending_confirmation return, but it leaves ambiguous whether the call blocks for duration_s or returns immediately, which matters for a timed motion command. Otherwise complete for a 5-parameter tool.

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%, with units, bounds, staleness, replay, and the confirmation threshold all documented per parameter. The description adds only the combined 'constant speed and turn rate' framing, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 with scope: 'Drive at a constant speed and turn rate for a bounded time, then stop.' The bounded-time framing and the pointer to reins_renew for extension let an agent separate this from the stop/renew siblings.

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?

Clearly establishes the operating context: a lease of at most 5 s that self-terminates, with reins_renew named as the way to continue. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement or a comparison against reins_stop, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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