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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not explain whether this is a partial or full replacement update, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or that the operation is destructive. For a destructive mutation, the partial-vs-replace semantics are the single most important thing to disclose and they are absent.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant restatement of the title. Efficient, though brevity here is partly a symptom of missing content rather than disciplined trimming.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 14% schema coverage, destructive mutation semantics, and no usage guidance, the definition leaves critical information an agent needs before calling this tool.

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 only 14%, so the burden falls on the description, yet it covers just three of seven parameters (prompt, confidenceThreshold, enabled) and omits rule_id, name, tableId, and project_slug. It adds no format or constraint detail (e.g., the 60-100 confidence range) beyond what the schema already encodes.

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 (change) and resource (routing rule) and enumerates the mutable fields, so it is distinguishable from routing_rules.create/delete/list at a glance. However it names 'destination' while the schema exposes 'tableId', leaving a small ambiguity about what is being changed.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer routing_rules.create or delete, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or project scoping are given. The agent is left to infer invocation context entirely.

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