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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the critical destructive semantics (the entire previous rule set is replaced by the passed set), the mandatory read-before-write protocol, and that array order equals application order. It also flags that word rules are a paid tariff feature, which the 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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, exclusion, replacement/read-first protocol, ordering, and alternatives. The definition is front-loaded and the safety warning (read first, full replacement) appears before the alternatives rather than buried.

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 destructive full-replace mutation with no output schema and a rich nested input schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: prep step route.show, the replacement semantics, ordering behavior, and routing to narrower sibling actions. No meaningful gaps remain.

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 the nested rule schema already documents kind/matchMode/isEnabled/replacement semantics in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining that the rules array is applied in order and that frame text is deliberately excluded from it, though the empty-list-clears-all behavior is already stated in the schema.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Задаёт правила маршрута целиком') and enumerates exactly which rule groups are covered: stop/require words, text and link replacements, attachment filters, utm cleanup. It also draws a boundary against route_set_frame_text, so the agent knows what this tool does not handle.

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?

Explicit read-modify-write instruction ('сначала прочитайте текущие правила (route.show) и передайте их вместе с изменениями') plus a clear when-not rule: if only one rule group changes, use the narrower action instead, with the alternatives named by group. Nothing is left to inference.

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