upsert_dbc_message

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses which attributes get written, but says nothing about whether an existing frame's signals are preserved or clobbered on update, what dry_run does, permission requirements, or what a successful response contains — serious omissions for a mutation tool with ten parameters.

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 tight sentence with the create-or-update verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though for a tool of this complexity the brevity is partly the source of the gaps noted above.

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 annotations, no output schema, ten undocumented parameters, and a destructive-ish write operation, one sentence is not enough for an agent to call this safely. At minimum the dry_run flag and update-vs-create conflict behavior should be described.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only maps two of them (cycle_time_ms to GenMsgCycleTime, is_fd to VFrameFormat) and leaves frame_id vs is_extended, dlc, sender, comment, and dry_run entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ('Create or update a CAN/CAN FD frame') plus the concrete side effect of writing GenMsgCycleTime and VFrameFormat attributes. It is clearly the message-level upsert counterpart to delete_dbc_message, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Create or update' implies upsert semantics, which is useful context for when this tool is appropriate versus a create-only path. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer delete_dbc_message, and no prerequisites such as the DBC file needing to exist or which node must own the frame.

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