vehicles_update

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

Annotations already establish non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful semantics that null clears an optional field. It still omits whether omitted fields are preserved, whether this is a partial or full replacement update, and how `active` archiving behaves.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The null-clearing rule is a useful second sentence and nothing is wasted.

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 output schema and only partial parameter descriptions, the definition is minimally adequate. The biggest omission is whether this is a partial update that preserves unspecified fields, which matters for correct invocation.

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% across 12 parameters. The description contributes the cross-reference to vehicles_create fields and the null-clearing rule, but it leaves many parameters undocumented in prose, including enum meanings and the non-nullable plate field.

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 specific verb and resource ('Update a vehicle') and defines scope as fields from vehicles_create plus `active`. It is clearly distinguishable from create/delete siblings, though it relies on another tool's schema to enumerate fields.

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 required uuid and update phrasing imply use on an existing vehicle, and the null instruction gives practical field-clearing guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of vehicles_create or vehicles_delete, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid vehicle UUID.

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