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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the concrete destructive consequence (existing routes for that driver/date are UNSCHEDULED) and the required follow-up action (re-run planning). It also reveals non-obvious persistence behavior: start/end locations carry over to future optimizations.

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 dense sentence of scope, one capitalized warning, one persistence note, one API path reference. The destructive warning is front-loaded and nothing is 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 16-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the safety and follow-up consequences are covered well. The remaining gap is that it never says whether omitted optional fields are left unchanged or cleared, which matters for a partial-update tool with this many parameters.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a semantic layer the schema cannot: start/end locations have lasting effect on future optimizations. It otherwise groups the editable fields at the same granularity the schema already documents.

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 and resource with scope: changing ONE driver's setup for ONE date, then enumerates the exact facets (enable/disable, work hours, vehicle, capacities, start/end location). The sibling list is dominated by order/route tools, so this driver-scoped update is unambiguously distinguishable.

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 single-driver/single-date framing makes the usage context clear, and it explicitly tells the agent to re-run planning after the update. It does not name an alternative tool for the multi-driver or bulk case, so it falls short of full when-not guidance.

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