preview_vehicle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well by disclosing the rendering source (installed meshes) and fidelity caveats: paint/wheel poses are approximate and it is not an in-game screenshot. This is exactly the kind of expectation-setting an agent needs. It does not mention door_state behavior or whether anything is persisted.

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 core action and never padded. The layer and camera semantics are packed densely, though the camera sentence is slightly telegraphic.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize the return; it does say an image is rendered ('not an in-game screenshot'), but says nothing about format, size, or how the required design is consumed. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, missing design/door_state semantics leave gaps.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for yaw/pitch/zoom/focus (close-up framing) and layer values (all/components/structure, with components hiding bodywork), but leaves the required 'design' parameter and the door_state enum entirely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Preview a draft using installed meshes'), which is clear and distinguishable from read-only inspection siblings. However, 'draft' is ambiguous (a design?) and it never explicitly distinguishes itself from preview_game_vehicle or preview_vehicle_diagnostics.

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 explains how to get a close-up via camera params and what layer=components is for, which implicitly guides usage. But it gives no explicit when-to-use versus preview_game_vehicle/preview_hull, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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