Flash the hazard lights

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

Annotations already flag this as a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive action. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the flash is brief, silent, and verified by the car reporting back. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 one sentence with no waste. The core action ('Flash the hazard lights briefly') is front-loaded, and the two additional facts—'flent' and 'verified by the car reporting back'—are both meaningful and compact.

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 simple one-parameter command with an output schema and solid annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors: brief action, silent, and confirmation. It could optionally mention prerequisites such as a selected vehicle, but that is not clearly required and would be redundant across sibling tools.

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 100%, and the single confirm parameter is already fully documented in the schema with its preview-versus-send behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Flash the hazard lights briefly'. It also states the purpose ('so the user can spot the car') and adds the distinguishing trait 'silent', which differentiates it from audible alternatives like toyota_sound_horn.

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 conveys a clear use context: visually locating the car. The word 'silent' implies the audible alternative is not used, though it does not explicitly name toyota_sound_horn or state when not to use this tool.

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