Replace a technician's vehicles

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

The description discloses that the operation is an overwrite, which is idempotent as per annotations. It adds value by noting that the vehicle list is embedded in the technician GET/list response. No contradictions with annotations.

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: a short title followed by two sentences that efficiently convey the core behavior and constraints. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description sufficiently explains the operation: overwrite behavior, clearing via empty list, business consistency, and where to find vehicle IDs. It also mentions the response embedment.

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 description adds significant context beyond the schema: for vehicle_ids, it explains that an empty list clears all, each ID must be from the same business, and suggests discovering via GET /vehicles. For id, it simply states 'Technician ID'. With 100% schema coverage, this is excellent.

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 clearly states the action ('Replace a technician's vehicles') and resource, elaborating with 'Overwrites the technician's vehicle list with the provided set of vehicle IDs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like replaceTechnicianBuddies and replaceTechnicianSkills.

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 guidance on usage: 'Sending an empty list clears all' and 'Each vehicle ID must belong to the same business'. It also suggests discovering vehicle IDs via GET /vehicles. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, which is implicit given the specific resource.

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