Preview Tesla Robotaxi cancellation

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

The description adds the guarantee 'without cancelling it,' but it does not clarify the tool's broader side-effect profile. Since readOnlyHint is false and openWorldHint is true, the agent needs more transparency about whether a preview may alter state; the description leaves this ambiguous.

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?

One tightly worded sentence communicates the action, the target, and the critical non-destructive guarantee. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. The only real gap is side-effect clarity, which is already partly covered by the annotations and is separate from contextual completeness.

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 are no parameters, so the schema already provides full coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 action (Preview), a specific resource (the active ride before cancellation), and the key differentiator from cancel_ride: it does not cancel. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like robotaxi_cancel_ride and robotaxi_ride_status.

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 phrase 'before cancellation' supplies a clear usage context, and 'without cancelling it' tells the agent this is a safe precursor to cancellation. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (robotaxi_cancel_ride) or state when not to use it.

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