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

Annotations only say it mutates and is closed-world; the description adds substantial behavior: the pending copy tracks edits to the original, deleting the original cancels the copy, the queue entry is stored encrypted, and the delay composes with publication windows by shifting to the window opening. That is exactly the kind of consequence-of-invocation detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core effect, then layer by layer: propagation semantics, zero case, limits, storage, window interaction. Dense but each sentence carries new behavioral information; the final window sentence is long but not padding.

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 with full schema coverage, no output schema and closed-world annotations, the description covers effect, edge cases (zero, deletion, editing), limit, storage and interaction with schedule — nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents routeId and the 0–86400 range; the description reinforces the zero case and the one-day cap and, more usefully, explains how the seconds value interacts with publication windows. It stops short of restating accepted units beyond 'seconds'.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: setting a route publication delay, defined as the copy arriving in the destination a given time after the original. The mechanism (pending copy, edit/delete propagation) makes its scope unmistakable when compared with route_set_schedule or route_set_rules, though it never names a sibling 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 by the effect description, and 'Ноль снимает задержку' tells the agent how to clear an existing delay, plus a hard ceiling of one day. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over route_set_schedule or what preconditions (ownership, route type) must hold.

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