update_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that only provided fields are changed (partial update), but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or what happens on validation failure. More depth is needed for a mutation 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every word is purposeful. It is highly concise with no filler.

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 description covers the core purpose but lacks information about the return value (no output schema). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_route_response or set_default_response. For a tool with 8 parameters, the description is sufficient but could be more 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reaffirms which fields are updatable and notes the partial update nature, but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., schema already says headers replaces existing headers).

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 verb 'update', the resource 'route', and lists the specific attributes that can be updated (method, endpoint, documentation, default response components). It also clarifies that it's a partial update ('Only provided fields are changed'), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_route and delete_route.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_route_response, set_default_response). It does not mention prerequisites such as the route existing or environment being valid, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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