Lock the trunk

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: after issuing the lock command, it verifies against the car-reported state, implying a postcondition check. It does not contradict readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true, and it gives the agent a clearer model of what the tool does.

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 contains the action, the scope, and the verification behavior, with the core command front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter command with an output schema and supporting annotations. The description covers the key behavioral contract (lock trunk only, then verify), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema covers the single 'confirm' parameter completely with a clear description and default. The tool description does not need to restate its meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies; no extra parameter detail is provided.

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-resource action ('Lock the trunk only') and the verification step, making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like toyota_unlock_trunk and toyota_lock_doors. No ambiguity exists about what resource is targeted.

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 word 'only' clearly delimits this operation from locking the doors and from unlocking the trunk, and the verification step adds a behavioral condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state negative-use cases, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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