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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the baseline disclosure burden is lower. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: the operation replaces the question's existing routing. This is important context for an agent, and it does not contradict the 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 two concise sentences with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the replacement consequence is stated clearly at the end. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 3-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and informative annotations, the description covers the core behavior, valid route targets, and the overwrite consequence. It does not describe return values or error cases, and there is no output schema, so it is strong but not fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents survey_id, qid, and routes well. The description mostly restates the routes semantics already present in the schema, though it adds the useful constraint that this applies specifically to single_select questions.

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 action ('Replaces the question's existing routing') on a specific resource ('single_select question') and explains the routing semantics: per answer code, jump to a later question id, 'end', or 'continue'. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like update_question or reorder_questions.

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 use case is implied: use this tool when you want skip logic on a single_select question. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention alternatives or prerequisites such as the question needing to be single_select or the survey needing to exist.

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