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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds real value by disclosing two non-obvious traits: a two-way route enables the whole pair, and settings/rules are left untouched. It stops short of saying what happens if the route is already active or what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, with the primary effect front-loaded and the pair-activation caveat and immutability note following in order of importance. No filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral surprises. Only idempotency/already-active behavior and error conditions are unaddressed.

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% and routeId is already documented as coming from routes.list, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no extra meaning about the identifier, leaving this at the baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Включает маршрут') and immediately explains the concrete effect: it starts forwarding new messages. That distinguishes the action from configuration siblings such as route_configure or route_set_rules, although no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied rather than stated: 'enables the route' suggests the resume counterpart to route_pause, but the description never says when to choose this over route_pause, route_show, or route_configure, and lists no preconditions.

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