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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that the tool writes to a pending batch, not the live account, caps that batch at 10 changes, and requires surfacing returned summaries to the user before confirming. That is real context an agent could not infer from the structured fields, and it is consistent with the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: trigger first, the deferred-write caveat second, the confirmation protocol third. Front-loaded and every clause carries operational meaning.

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 3-parameter proposal tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the effect is deferred, the batch limit exists, a summary is returned and must be shown to the user, and confirmation is a separate call. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 route, active, and organization are already documented, including the multi-organization caveat for organization. The description's 'activate or pause' phrasing reinforces the active boolean but adds no syntax, naming format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource pair ('activate or pause a route'), matching the title and the route/active parameters, so an agent can tell this is a route state-flag mutation from the name and first sentence. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near siblings like patroltech_routes_propose_create or patroltech_routes_propose_add_time_window, which also operate on routes.

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 trigger ('use when you want to activate or pause a route'), an explicit sequencing constraint ('nothing changes in the account yet... call patroltech_proposals_confirm only after they agree'), and names the follow-up tool and its precondition. The staged-proposal model removes ambiguity about whether this tool performs the change.

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