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

Annotations already indicate a non-read idempotent operation; the description adds important behavioral detail that omitting optional fields clears existing values. This clarifies the actual impact of a call, which is not fully captured by the annotations. It does not mention auth or return behavior, but the core destructive semantics are disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first and the critical replacement semantics are front-loaded in the second sentence.

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?

The description captures the essential behavior needed to invoke the tool correctly: full replacement and clearing of missing optional fields. The required parameters are documented in the schema, and no output schema exists to explain. It is complete for this operation, though a brief note distinguishing it from create/update would elevate it further.

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 each optional parameter is already documented as 'Omit to clear'. The description's note about missing optional fields being cleared reinforces this but adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('routing strategy'), and adds the key property that this is a full document replacement. This makes it distinguishable from sibling tools such as create_routing_strategy, archive_routing_strategy, or get_routing_strategy without needing to inspect schemas.

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 phrase 'Full document replacement' implies this tool is for replacing entire routing strategies rather than patching specific fields, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over create/update/archive siblings or what to do for partial updates. Usage context is present but only by inference.

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