apply_vehicle_assembly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses atomic replacement of existing target drivers, commit=true creating one undo step, preview-includes-diagnostics, and control semantics (starter manual/hold, idle open-loop). It omits permissions/authorization or failure modes, but the mutation and reversibility profile is clearly conveyed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then dense constraint and side-effect sentences with zero filler. Every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the behavioral constraints are valuable. But for a 6-parameter, 0%-coverage tool in a dense sibling ecosystem, the description leaves key parameters and the scope of 'assembly' (engine_start_idle, clutch_engagement, brake_reverse, lighting) unaddressed.

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 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain commit's undo behavior and the clutch_gate vs throttle_gate distinction and that bindings take current part IDs, but it never explains design, revision, the assembly enum values, or the AssemblyOptions fields.

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?

States a specific verb ('configure/wire') and a resource ('reusable controls') and distinguishes intent from the many sibling preview/edit tools by naming 'explicit current part IDs'. However, 'reusable controls' is somewhat abstract and the description never names the vehicle-assembly domain explicitly, so an agent must infer the resource from the tool name.

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?

Gives behavioral constraints ('clutch needs its own gate', 'reverse while stopped') but no when-to-use or when-not guidance against siblings like edit_connections, route_connections, or preview_vehicle. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice over alternatives.

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