import_vehicle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits: 'never changes the source' (non-destructive read of source) and 'Existing configured/wired parts are protected' (side-effect scoping on the destination draft). It omits permission requirements, failure modes (e.g., non-version-3 or multi-body source), and what 'protected' means operationally.

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 purpose in a compact two-sentence form with no filler; the semicolon and trailing tool references are efficient. Slight structure roughness from the fragment-like final sentence, but nothing wasteful.

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 need not be explained, and the description covers non-destructiveness plus the follow-on workflow. However, for a draft-creating tool with zero annotations it leaves prerequisites and error conditions unaddressed, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for name, design, and source — and it does not. It never explains what 'design' identifies or what the 'source' collection default ('vehicles') selects. Only the word 'vehicle' loosely hints at the resource being referenced.

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 (import) and resource (vehicle) with a meaningful scope qualifier: 'existing single-body version-3 vehicle into a new draft.' That constraint meaningfully separates it from siblings like create_land_vehicle and load_design, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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?

'Use query_parts/edit_parts and save_vehicle' provides post-import workflow guidance, which implies context but is not a when-to-use rule or an explicit alternative to import_vehicle itself. It never says when NOT to import, nor contrasts with load_design or apply_vehicle_assembly.

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