create_land_vehicle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a fair job: it discloses what the default buggy contains, that parts must fit/mount/leave driver and service access, and that some presets come with pipes and typed links. It does not state whether this persists anything (draft vs saved), what happens on invalid layouts, or permissions, so it is informative but not complete.

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 core purpose and preset distinction are front-loaded, which is good. However, the inventory of buggy parts ('bodywork, four suspension wheels, saddle, premade fuel tanks, engine, battery, radiator and actual lights') and the humvee_4x4 detail are verbose relative to the decision the agent needs to make, pushing the length beyond what earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior, parameters, and returns. It covers behavior and the tool pipeline well, but omits what the tool returns (draft handle/id?) and leaves the meaning of 'design' and 'spec' unresolved, which is a real gap for a required-parameter creation tool.

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 0% and neither 'design' nor 'spec' is explained in the description. Worse, the description discusses preset=chassis and preset=humvee_4x4 while the schema exposes no 'preset' parameter, leaving unclear whether those values belong in the required 'design' string or the optional 'spec' object. Some vocabulary is added (grid units of 0.25 m, game metres), but the two actual parameters remain semantically opaque.

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+resource ('Create a land draft') and immediately qualifies it with the default (utility_buggy) and the alternative custom path (preset=chassis). It also sketches the rest of the workflow, which separates it from sibling tools like save_vehicle or preview_vehicle. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with load_design/import_vehicle, which also produce vehicle structures.

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 clear context for the two entry modes (default buggy vs preset=chassis bare layout) and names the exact follow-up tools for each branch: query_connections/edit_connections/route_connections/preflight_vehicle for custom layouts, then query_parts/edit_parts/preview_vehicle, then save_vehicle. This is a strong pipeline, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or 'use X instead' statement against siblings such as import_vehicle.

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