Create AI Object

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: silent ignore when the title matches nothing, no reply/error, null object_id meaning 'not confirmed to exist' rather than definite failure, and the separate causes for null. It also explains that object_id is the handle needed for SimConnect_AIRemoveObject. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then a compact use-case statement, and then a focused edge-case explanation. The longer section about null object_id is justified because misinterpreting it would lead an agent to report a false failure.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to redefine return values, yet it explains the meaning of object_id and message, clarifies the not-installed case, and gives removal context. For a spawn tool with non-obvious failure modes, this is complete.

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?

The schema already documents all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-specific context for 'title' by emphasizing that it must match an installed aircraft exactly and linking the resulting object_id to removal. Other parameters need no further explanation.

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 precise action ('Spawn an AI aircraft or object at a position') and a clear resource. The 'AI' qualifier distinguishes it from actions on the user aircraft (e.g., msfs_set_aircraft_position) and from loading flights or events, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('building traffic or collision-avoidance test scenarios') and a hard prerequisite: the title must exactly match an installed aircraft. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear and the tool's role is unique among the listed siblings.

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