plan_vehicle_repairs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it says the tool tests suggested edits without changing the draft, returns each finding's severity, affected ids and explanation, and indicates which issues are automatic repairs versus requiring a design choice. It also makes the repair_vehicle handoff explicit.

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 three compact sentences and front-loads the core action before explaining the return data and next step. The final 'Read-only' phrase is slightly redundant with the annotations but does not undermine the efficient structure.

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?

Given that annotations cover safety, the schema fully describes the single input, and an output schema exists, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role, its read-only behavior, and how to use its output. No essential invocation context is missing.

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 one parameter, design, and its schema description has 100% coverage, including where draft names come from. The tool description does not add any further meaning about the design parameter beyond referring to 'a draft's faults', so the schema does most of the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: diagnose a draft's faults and test suggested edits, wires and pipes without changing it. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling repair_vehicle by making clear this is the read-only planning step whose output is passed onward to repair_vehicle.

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?

The description gives clear usage context by instructing the caller to pass the returned revision, plan_id and finding ids to repair_vehicle. It does not explicitly compare against other diagnostic siblings such as preview_vehicle_diagnostics or preflight_vehicle, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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