repair_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 atomicity ('whole batch as one undo step') and validation behavior ('guards reject stale suggestions and conflicting repairs'), which are real behavioral traits. It still omits permissions, exactly what gets mutated, and failure modes for rejected findings, so it is only partially 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the preview default and then the commit behavior. Every sentence adds information and there is 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?

The output schema exists, so return format need not be described. But for a 5-param, 4-required mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the description under-documents the inputs even though it handles the commit/undo semantics well.

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 5 params, so the description must compensate. It explains only 'commit' (the optional param) and hints at 'revision' and 'plan_id' via the guard sentence; 'design' and 'finding_ids' are left entirely undefined, leaving a large gap for a tool where 4 params are required.

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 ('repair_vehicle' previewing/applying selected repairs) and clarifies the preview-vs-commit distinction. It does not name the nearby siblings plan_vehicle_repairs or preflight_vehicle, so an agent cannot fully separate this from the planning and preflight tools without inference.

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 implies usage through commit=false preview vs commit=true apply, which is useful. However, it never states when to pick this over plan_vehicle_repairs (generate suggestions) or preflight_vehicle (validate), leaving the workflow routing implicit.

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