update_vehicle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Actualizar' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, if it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's under-specified rather than concise, as it lacks necessary details for a mutation tool. It's front-loaded but too minimal to be fully effective.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 high (86%), with all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between fields (e.g., provider object structure) or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 'Actualizar un vehículo' (Update a vehicle) clearly states the verb and resource, but it's vague about what aspects of the vehicle are updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other update_* tools in the sibling list, like update_activities or update_program, beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing vehicle ID), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like create_vehicle or delete_vehicle in the sibling list.

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