pls_create_car

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return format ({success, entity, action}) and the mandatory confirm parameter for write operations. It does not disclose idempotency or side effects beyond the annotation hints.

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 concise, using a single sentence, a list, and a tip. It front-loads the emoji and title, making it scannable. However, the phrase '可根据实体类型传入对应字段' is slightly vague but doesn't add undue verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description covers the confirm constraint and return format. With 10% schema coverage (actually 100% - note: signal shows 100% coverage, so params are well-documented), the description complements the schema. It provides enough context for the agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention validation behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the confirm parameter and hints at passing fields based on entity type, but it does not add meaningful semantic details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., carType enum values, hasWeightDevice meaning).

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 the tool creates car entities, with an emoji and title indicating management. It clearly distinguishes from other CRUD tools like pls_update_car and pls_delete_car. However, it could be more explicit about the car-specific fields being passed, as it uses the generic phrase '根据实体类型传入对应字段'.

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 some usage guidance: it emphasizes the confirm parameter requirement and advises only passing required fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. other car-related tools (e.g., update, delete) or exclude any scenarios. This is adequate but lacks explicit context.

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