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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds the specific consequence of 404 responses until a new route is configured. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints, though it omits details like permission requirements or failure modes.

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 just two sentences: the first states the action, the second explains the consequence. No filler, no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description adds the key implication (404 until a new route). It does not mention prerequisites like the route needing to exist, but that is likely covered by the output schema or implied by the operation.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions including the routeIdentifier identity semantics. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a single route entry from a port listener.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_domain_port and add_domain_route, and the phrase 'single route entry' narrows the scope appropriately.

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 clear context by stating the immediate effect ('Traffic that matched this route returns 404 on the affected listener until a new matching route is configured'), which helps the agent understand when this destructive tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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