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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds context such as 'server-owned' and 'generated app route' but does not explain behavioral details like whether existing policies are replaced or merged, or any side effects beyond the annotation. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the action ('Create or update') and specifies the object. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential action and scope but lacks nuances like the meaning of 'generated app route', the effect of updates, or the role of redirect_to and allowed_roles in policy enforcement. The schema covers required fields, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate outcomes.

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 60% of parameters with descriptions (route, app_id, allowed_roles), but the description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not clarify redirect_to or require_auth beyond their schema defaults, and with only 60% coverage the description could have compensated but did not.

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 states a clear verb ('Create or update') and a specific resource ('server-owned route policy for a generated app route'). It is distinct from sibling tools like set_entity_policy, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it is for managing route policies in the context of generated app routes.

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