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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: synchronous execution, the already_absent=true success case, and the AMBIGUOUS_ROUTE error with matching_route_ids. Slight tension with idempotentHint=false (re-deleting a gone route returns ok), but not a direct contradiction.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope, then layers input requirements, edge cases, and the sibling alternative. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long but not 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description proactively covers error and no-op outcomes. Combined with the input guidance and clear alternative routing, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it clarifies that route_id accepts a route id or an exact unique label, and that map_session_id and ts_handle are interchangeable session handles. It omits format specifics for the session identifiers, keeping it short of a 5.

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 and resource: 'removes one whole route from the Territory Solution and the open map.' It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling calculate_route for single-stop removal, so the agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit input requirements ('needs route_id or the route's exact unique label, plus map_session_id or ts_handle') and routes the agent to the alternative path for removing one stop via calculate_route. When-to-use and when-not are both covered.

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