vehicle_ai_configure

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

Annotations are mostly false or unhelpful (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'disable or stop', which is a mutation, but fails to disclose reversibility, side effects on the vehicle, or whether multiple calls change state incrementally. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded with the primary action, but missing details make it less effective. It could be split into more structured points.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 properties in the input config) and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least overview the configuration purpose and key parameters. It fails to do so, leaving the agent reliant solely on the schema, which has 0% description coverage.

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%, meaning the JSON schema's parameter descriptions are empty. The tool description adds no information about any of the 9 configuration properties (mode, lane, speed, etc.). An agent cannot understand what parameters like 'aggression' or 'target_waypoint' mean or how to set them correctly.

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 states the tool disables or stops standalone native AI, and hints at a distinction that moving modes require autonomy_start. However, it does not fully convey that the tool configures AI modes including non-disabled modes like random or traffic, which are evident in the schema. The verb 'configure' in the name is broad, but the description narrows it to disabling, which could mislead.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions 'moving modes require autonomy_start' but does not clearly state alternative tools or contexts where this tool should be avoided. Without such guidance, an agent may misuse it.

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