plan_vehicle_repairs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it declares the operation is non-mutating ('without changing the draft') and enumerates the return content (severity, affected IDs, explanations, operations, manual-review reasons). It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate or cost limits, but the safety-relevant behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and its key constraint, then the return contents, then the handoff instruction. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 spelled out (the description nonetheless summarizes them helpfully). The non-mutating nature and the repair_vehicle handoff make it complete enough to call for a diagnostic tool, though the undocumented 'design' parameter is the notable remaining gap.

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?

There is a single required parameter ('design') with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description never defines it, its format, or whether it takes an ID versus raw design content. The only hint is the oblique reference to 'the draft' and the returned plan_id/revision, which is inference rather than documentation.

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 pair and resource ('Diagnose faults and test suggested edits') and immediately scopes it with 'without changing the draft'. This cleanly separates it from the mutating sibling repair_vehicle, which the description explicitly names, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Names the downstream alternative explicitly ('Use the returned revision, plan_id and available finding IDs with repair_vehicle'), giving a clear condition for the handoff. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other diagnostics-adjacent siblings like preview_vehicle_diagnostics or analyze_vehicle, so exclusions are incomplete.

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