create_land_vehicle

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: it writes only a stored draft and never a game file, refuses an existing name, and returns a preview image, notes, and revision. These details materially clarify side effects and constraints for a non-destructive but non-idempotent write tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and return values, then gives workflow and preset details. It is somewhat dense, especially the semicolon-separated preset summaries, but there is little true waste for a tool with downstream workflow dependencies.

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 complex creation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return behavior, the draft-only safety boundary, the name constraint, and the full follow-up workflow through validation and saving.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantics for spec.preset by naming the default utility_buggy and summarizing the contents of humvee_4x4 and utility_4x4. It repeats the existing-name constraint already present in the schema but adds meaningful preset context.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new land vehicle draft'. It also clarifies the return values and distinguishes the draft from a real game file, so the agent can tell what this tool does and what it does not do.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: read land_vehicle_guide first, then complete with query_parts/edit_parts and connection tools, check with preflight_vehicle, and save with save_vehicle. It also states the prerequisite that the design name must not already exist.

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