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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does it well: it discloses that forwarding ceases, that settings and rules survive, that the change is reversible at any time, and — non-obviously — that both directions of a two-way route are paused as a pair. It stops short of permission requirements, effect on in-flight messages, or any return value.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its consequence; the pair-pausing caveat follows as a scoped second sentence. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the important behavioral semantics (reversible, settings preserved, pair-wide effect). Minor gap: nothing about what happens to a route already paused or what the call returns on success.

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% and the single routeId parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including where to obtain it (routes.list). The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (pause) and resource (route) plus what pausing actually means: forwarding stops but settings and rules are preserved. It is clearly separable from siblings like route_resume or route_configure, though it never names route_resume explicitly as the counterpart.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'включить можно в любой момент' hints this is a temporary, reversible stop, and the two-way note tells the agent the pair is affected as a unit. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative (route_resume) to route the agent toward the inverse operation.

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