Autopilot

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint, so the description carries the rest of the burden and does so with a genuinely useful disclosure: enabling as a side effect starts the simulation. It also characterizes the autopilot as rule-based, setting expectations for deterministic behavior. It does not say whether disabling autopilot also stops the simulation, which is the one remaining behavioral ambiguity.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the important side effect in a tight parenthetical. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.

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 single-boolean toggle with only an idempotency annotation and no output schema, the description covers intent, effect, and the notable simulation-start side effect. The only gap is the inverse case — whether disabling halts the simulation or leaves it running.

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 0%, so the description must carry the single boolean, and it does: 'Enable … or disable it' maps directly onto enabled=true/false. No further syntax or defaults are needed for a boolean flag.

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 pair (enable/disable) and a specific resource (the built-in rule-based autopilot), plus a one-line summary of what the autopilot actually does (seeks light, avoids obstacles). It is clearly distinct from siblings like set_simulation or drive, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 enable/disable framing implies the obvious usage, and 'also starts the simulation' hints at the relationship to the simulation lifecycle, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance or warning about when not to use it (e.g. while manually driving).

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