routine_control

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

With no annotations, the description does add real value by warning that routines 'act on the ECU' and require user confirmation before starting, which signals a state-mutating operation. It does not disclose likely prerequisites (diagnostic session, security access) or what stop/results do differently from start.

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 tight sentences with no padding, and the identifying information (service id, routine_id format) is front-loaded ahead of the safety note. Nothing wasteful, though the brevity comes at the cost of parameter coverage.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a three-parameter UDS mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description omits control semantics, data payload handling, and session/security prerequisites that would matter before invoking it.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies only routine_id (hex encoding with an example) and says nothing about `control` (start/stop/results) or `data_hex`, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 combination (0x31 RoutineControl on a routine_id) with a concrete hex example ("0203"), which lets an agent map it to the UDS service. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as read_data_by_identifier or ecu_reset, which is why it stops short of 5.

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 only guidance is a caution to confirm with the user before starting a routine; there is no statement of when to use this tool versus the ten sibling diagnostic tools. No prerequisites (session, security access) or exclusions are given.

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