drive_to

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful side effects: boarding a free car and consuming inventory fuel when needed. However, it does not mention the async job behavior implied by wait_s and replace (queueing, cancelling, returning a job id), nor what happens if no free car is available.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the core action and includes only the essential behavioral nuance about fuelling. There is no filler, redundancy, or off-topic detail.

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?

The description plus the rich schema and output schema provide enough to attempt a basic call, but the definition lacks explicit guidance on alternatives and fails to surface the job-queue/cancellation semantics. It is minimally viable but has clear contextual gaps.

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 80%, which meets the high-coverage baseline of 3. The description only loosely refers to the destination as a 'position' and adds no detail on coordinate format, wait_s, replace, or arrive_within; the schema already documents those adequately.

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 names a specific verb ('board'), a concrete resource ('nearest free car'), and a destination ('drive to a position'). It also adds the non-obvious sub-action of fuelling from inventory, clearly distinguishing this from movement siblings like walk_to.

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 clearly implies this is for traveling by car rather than on foot, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over walk_to, exit_vehicle, or set_train_schedule. It gives the mechanism but no explicit when/when-not conditions or named alternatives.

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