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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is covered structurally. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not say what is created or persisted, whether repeated calls duplicate state, or what the confirmation produces, and with no output schema the return value is entirely undisclosed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so length is fine, but it is under-specified rather than concise, and the vague UI reference occupies the one slot where the tool's actual effect should be stated.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, so the description carries real burden to explain side effects and results. It explains neither, missing what an agent needs to call it confidently and to know whether the call succeeded in persisting a route.

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 71%, and the schema itself documents startPlaceId, stopPlaceIds, startTime, endPlaceId and ignoredFields richly. The description's "addresses and settings" adds no meaning beyond that — nothing about stop ordering, the optimizer's role, or what ignoredFields does in the result.

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?

"Records the addresses and settings" gives a weak verb and a fuzzy resource: it never says whether this creates a saved route, confirms an optimization, or persists a draft. The reference to "the Optimize button" is a UI artifact an agent cannot observe, and it does nothing to separate this tool from the sibling create_route.

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?

There is an implied trigger (data submitted by the Optimize button), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The sibling create_route is never mentioned, so the agent has no basis for choosing between saving a route and confirming one.

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