create_route_with_responses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the default response selection logic but lacks disclosure of other behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether existing routes are overwritten), error states, idempotency, or rate limits.

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 sentence plus a helpful note. It is extremely concise with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested responses array), the description is too brief. It does not cover prerequisites (e.g., environment existence), workflow, or return values (no output schema). Important context 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small nuance about default response selection, but otherwise the schema already describes the parameters adequately. The added value is minimal.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new HTTP route together with all its responses (default + conditionals) in a single call.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_route (which likely creates a route without responses) and add_route_response (adds responses individually).

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 mentions that 'The first response in the list is treated as the default unless one has isDefault=true,' which gives a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_route followed by add_route_response), nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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