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

Beyond the annotations, which already indicate this is a read/write operation that is not idempotent or destructive, the description discloses important behavioral traits: 'only the fields you send are changed; omitted fields keep their current value (or take the default when the queue is first added)' and the immutability of live/historic revisions. This adds meaningful context that annotations do not provide. It does not mention auth requirements or error cases, but those are not explicit gaps for this operation.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical behavioral caveats (partial update, immutability) are packed efficiently into the next two. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 3 required) and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential operational context: scope, mutable fields, partial-update behavior, and immutability constraints. Since there is no output schema, one might expect a note about return values, but for a mutation-style operation this omission is minor. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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%, so each parameter already has a detailed explanation of its meaning and null/omit behavior. The description essentially restates the key fields (agent, enabled, name/description overrides) without adding new details beyond what the schema already says. The partial-update note is behavioral guidance rather than per-parameter semantic enrichment, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set the per-revision routing for one queue in a draft revision — which agent it triggers, whether it is enabled, and per-revision name/description overrides.' This precisely identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from queue-independent operations like setAutomationRevisionAgent. The field list maps clearly to the parameters.

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?

The description gives clear context for when the tool applies: it targets draft revisions and explicitly warns that 'Live and historic revisions are immutable,' which is a when-not guideline. It also clarifies partial-update behavior and default-on-creation semantics. However, it does not name any alternative tools or compare against siblings like setAutomationRevisionAgent, so it falls short of a 5.

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