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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the URL answers again after the route map updates in about a minute, that an unpublished page still returns 404, and that a conflicting page produces route_conflict with existingSiteId. These are meaningful operational behaviors for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and user-intent examples, then uses bullets for timing and conflict behavior. It is appropriately sized for a mutation tool with non-obvious side effects.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the success timing, the unpublished-page 404 case, and the conflict result shape. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency, it gives the agent enough to call the tool 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 100%, and the schema already documents routeId as the id of a disabled route from list_domain_routes. The description reinforces the disabled-status prerequisite but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: re-opening one stopped custom-domain route, with the page it had. It clearly distinguishes this from disable_domain_route and list_domain_routes by naming the stopped-route state and the prerequisite lookup.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance, including user-intent examples, and says to call list_domain_routes first and pass a route whose status is "disabled". It also covers the conflict case and tells the agent to ask the user before changing anything else.

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