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

The annotations already declare write access, non-idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: nothing is sent to drivers, drivers must be active and share the plan's depot, a depot defaults to the team's main depot, and the tool does not optimize or distribute. It does not cover error conditions or rate limits, but it is strong for an annotated write tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the operation type ('WRITE') and packs all constraints into clear parentheticals. Every clause adds useful information with no filler, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description is the only source for behavioral context, and it covers creation semantics, side effects, driver/depot constraints, and exclusions well. It does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a plan ID or object), which would be helpful for chaining calls, but the core invocation context is complete.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description still adds valuable semantics not in the schema: driver_ids must be active drivers sharing the plan's depot and are capped at 50, and depot_id defaults to the team's main depot. These constraints materially affect correct invocation.

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 (create) and resource (route plan for a date) and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting that it creates no stops and sends nothing to drivers. It also explicitly rules out optimizing and distributing, which are separate sibling tools. An agent can identify this tool's exact role without opening the schema.

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 to use it: to create a plan before stops exist, and it explicitly excludes optimization and distribution. However, it does not name the alternative tools (e.g., spoke_optimize_plan, spoke_distribute_plan) that should be used for those excluded actions, leaving that inference to the agent.

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