vehicles_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a useful behavior: sending null clears an optional field, and 'any field of vehicles_create' implies partial update semantics. However, it omits side effects (such as active=false archiving, which appears only in the schema), permissions, and response behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose first and then adds the key null-clearing rule. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 12-parameter update tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not mention the required uuid (though the schema does), return values, error conditions, or side effects beyond null clearing. The agent is left with significant gaps.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds general meaning by stating that null clears optional fields and that all create fields are updatable. Yet it does not explain individual parameter semantics, leaving the agent to reference vehicles_create; the active parameter's meaning is documented in the schema, not the description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'vehicle' and further clarifies the field scope as 'any field of vehicles_create, plus active'. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from vehicles_create and vehicles_delete, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the vehicle must already exist), when not to use it, or how it differs from vehicles_create or vehicles_delete beyond the obvious verb.

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