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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add context, which it does: it discloses the real-world dispatch to drivers, the required ITINERARY_PLANNING_ACCESS permission, the empty 204 response, and the endpoint. It does not explain consequences of the driver_pay_locked_status choice (what locked pay means or whether unlocking is reversible), which is the main remaining gap for a destructive mutation.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the mutating effect is stated first, followed by the prerequisite, parameter provenance, response and auth details. Every sentence carries information; slight loss from terse phrasing like 'as in the plan' and 'copy `from` from the plan reply' which requires the agent to already know the plan shape.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description correctly states the response is empty on success (204). With auth requirements, endpoint, prerequisite tooling and parameter provenance all covered, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only the pay-lock enum's operational meaning is left entirely to the schema.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including the const `confirm` and `driver_pay_locked_status`. The description adds useful provenance guidance for the stops fields (id, sequence and from come from the plan reply), but says nothing about the plans/routeId structure or when to use UNLOCK_AND_DISPATCH vs KEEP_LOCKED_AND_DISPATCH, so it does not fully compensate.

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 (COMMIT/save), resource (route plan for one route date) and concrete effects: moves and re-sequences route stops and dispatches the changed routes to drivers. It explicitly names the sibling tools (cxt_plan_routes / cxt_optimize_route_plan) it pairs with, so an agent can tell it apart from the read/planning tools.

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 an explicit precondition: use only after the user has seen and approved a plan produced by cxt_plan_routes or cxt_optimize_route_plan. That names both the alternative tools and the condition that selects this one, leaving nothing to inference.

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