mcp-teslamate-fleet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a write operation ('Set'), it doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if the vehicle needs to be awake/online, what happens if the vehicle is sleeping, rate limits, or what the response looks like. The description provides basic action context but lacks important operational details.

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 appropriately sized with two clear sentences: one stating the purpose and scope, another explaining the parameter. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality first. The 'Args:' section could be slightly more integrated, but overall there's minimal waste.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and parameter meaning. However, for a write operation affecting vehicle state, it should ideally mention more about behavioral context like vehicle state requirements or confirmation of execution.

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 description adds significant semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'temp_f' represents 'Target temperature in Fahrenheit' and provides a 'reasonable range' (60-85), which the schema only indicates as an integer with default 70. This compensates well for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Set cabin temperature target') and resource ('Both driver and passenger'), using precise terminology. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling climate tools like 'tesla_climate_on' and 'tesla_climate_off' by specifying temperature control rather than just turning climate systems on/off.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'cabin temperature' and the temperature range, suggesting this is for climate control while the vehicle is occupied or preconditioning. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'tesla_climate_on' or provide prerequisites such as vehicle wake state or connectivity requirements.

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