vehicles_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: the plate is normalized to upper case. It also implies a workflow (documents added separately). However, it doesn't mention required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response contains. For a create operation, this is a moderate gap.

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 sentences, no fluff. The core action is first, the normalization behavior is second, and the follow-up workflow is third. Every sentence earns its place.

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 create tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It tells the agent the action and the follow-up, but doesn't clarify required fields beyond the schema, nor what a successful response looks like. The sibling context and schema fill some gaps, but the description alone is not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 40%, so the schema documents some parameters (plate, companyId, ownership, year) but not others (vin, fuel, make, model, notes, driverName). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the plate normalization. It doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameters, but the schema already covers the key ones.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Add a vehicle to the company.' It also mentions normalizing the plate and points to a sibling tool for documents, which helps distinguish it from vehicles_list/get/update/delete. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with vehicles_update or vehicles_list, so it's not a full 5.

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 gives a clear context: use this to add a vehicle, and then add documents afterwards with expiries_create. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like vehicles_update, but the workflow hint is useful and implies the follow-up step.

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