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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The 'same body as create' phrasing does hint that this is a full replacement rather than a partial patch, which is genuinely useful PUT semantics. Still missing are any notes on required permissions, what happens to fields omitted from the body, or whether concurrent edits are a concern.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The endpoint and the body-source reference are front-loaded, so an agent gets the essential facts in the first read.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the 100%-covered input schema documents all six parameters. The description covers the operation and body shape adequately for a mutation tool, though it leaves the agent to infer that sibling create's body is authoritative and that api_key is optional when the MCP header carries it.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only one small clarification — that route_id is a path param rather than a body field — and defers the rest of the parameter meaning to the create tool's documentation.

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 ('Edit a Retrieve route') and ties it to a concrete endpoint (PUT /routes/edit/{route_id}), which cleanly separates it from claix.routes.create and claix.routes.delete. It does not explicitly say what distinguishes an edit from a create beyond the presence of route_id, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 clause 'Same body as create plus route_id path param' implicitly tells the agent when to reach for the create schema as a reference, which is helpful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. the route must already exist), and no mention of the delete sibling as the alternative for removal.

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