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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real substance beyond that by explaining the blast radius (utm labels removed from every link's visible text and href), what is preserved (the rest of the address, and all other route rules), and that links remain functional. It does not state whether the change is reversible beyond the strip=false toggle or what the response looks like.

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 action, followed by the effect and the client-facing rationale; every clause carries information. It is a single dense sentence with a parenthetical, which is slightly heavy but not padded.

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, non-read-only toggle with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is left untouched, and why an agent would call it. Only the return value and reversibility are unstated, which is minor at this complexity.

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 both parameters are already well documented, including routeId's provenance from routes.list. The description reinforces the partial-stripping semantics ('остальное в адресе остаётся') but adds little the schema does not already say, so the baseline 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 precise verb+resource pair: enabling/disabling utm-label stripping on a route, and names exactly which labels (utm_source, utm_medium) are affected. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-miss siblings such as route_set_replacements or route_set_ad_filter, which also touch link text, so it falls short of 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rationale: the client does not want to carry someone else's traffic statistics into their channel. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the context for invoking it is unambiguous.

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