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

Beyond the annotations (which only say readOnly=false and openWorld=false), the description discloses that the route is enabled immediately, that the call is idempotent when the route already exists, and that plan limits can cause refusal with an explanatory response. That is exactly the mutation/side-effect context an agent needs before writing.

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?

Four short sentences, all front-loaded with the action first and constraints after; nothing is redundant filler. Slightly dense with constraint clauses, but every clause constrains behaviour or preconditions.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, preconditions, idempotency, and failure signalling (refusal responses explain the problem). There is no significant gap an agent would have to guess at before invoking 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine meaning: it binds the parameters to the constraint that both chats be human-administered chats where the bot is admin, that they must not be equal, and that a community wall is source-only. It does not add format or syntax details beyond the schema, so it stops short of 5.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination ('Создаёт маршрут пересылки') plus the immediate side effect of enabling it, which is more than a restatement of the name. It is distinguishable from siblings like route_pause or route_change_target by describing creation, but it never names an alternative tool explicitly, keeping it below a 5.

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 states concrete preconditions for use: both chats must be human chats where the bot is administrator, source and target must differ, and a community wall may only be a source. It also explains the idempotent case (an existing route is simply enabled) and the tariff/free-tier constraint, but gives no explicit 'use X instead' routing to siblings.

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