save_vehicle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely valuable non-obvious trait: imported originals are protected from overwrite even when overwrite=true. However, it is silent on permissions, whether an existing same-named draft is overwritten by default, and whether the operation is destructive.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the save action comes first and the exception second. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of missing information rather than pure concision.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description is too thin. It leaves the identity of a "draft," the meaning of name/design, and default overwrite behavior unaddressed.

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% and none of the three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds meaning only to overwrite (its limits on imported originals), while name and design remain completely undescribed, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb "Save" plus the object "any draft" gives an approximate purpose, but the tool is named save_vehicle and the description never says "vehicle" or clarifies what constitutes a draft. It also fails to differentiate from close siblings such as save_hull, store_design, or import_vehicle, so an agent cannot tell which save path applies.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus save_hull/store_design, no prerequisites, and no distinction between saving a new draft and updating one. The overwrite caveat hints at one boundary case but is a behavioral note rather than usage guidance.

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