routing_policy_update

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It labels the tool as WRITE with medium risk, explains it is reversible, captures prior policy for undo, and details side effects on cache locality. This provides sufficient transparency beyond what structured fields would offer.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main action and risk level, followed by a paragraph explaining policies and an ordered Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, reversible nature, and undo mechanism. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully with an Args section explaining all four parameters: application, deployment, policy (with enumerated values), and target (with default behavior). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 clearly states the action ('Switch'), resource ('deployment's request-routing policy'), and specifies it is reversible. It distinguishes from siblings like 'autoscale_config_update' by focusing on routing policy.

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 explains when to use each policy ('prefix_aware'/'session_affinity' for cache locality, 'round_robin' for load spreading). It does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternative tools, but the guidance on policy choice is clear.

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