vehicles_create

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent create operation. The description adds useful behavior by noting plate normalization and the follow-up document workflow, but it does not mention duplicate handling, permissions, or what is returned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key normalization detail and next-step workflow. 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 definition is adequate because annotations cover safety traits and the schema carries parameter types/enums. However, for a 10-parameter create tool with no output schema, it should say more about return values and optional fields to be 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?

With 10 parameters and only 40% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the many undocumented fields. It explains only plate normalization and does not clarify the roles of vin, fuel, make, model, notes, driverName, or companyId beyond what the schema itself provides.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: "Add a vehicle to the company." It clearly separates this from sibling read/update/delete operations and points to the related expiries creation flow.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool: creating a vehicle under the company, with the follow-up action of adding documents via expiries_create. It does not explicitly compare against vehicles_update or state exclusions, so not a full 5.

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