Manage Routing Table

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive. Description adds idempotency by table name and dry-run mode, but does not disclose that destructive actions may require a confirmation token (though the schema's confirmationToken description covers this).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core action and key characteristics. No unnecessary words.

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 create/remove tool with well-documented schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks mention of confirmation flow for destructive actions, but that is covered by the schema parameter. No output schema, but return is straightforward.

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 descriptions cover all 6 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds context that name is an idempotency key and dryRun enables preview, but the schema already provides adequate meanings.

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 it creates or removes a custom routing table, with idempotency and dry-run support. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_routing_tables.

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 implies usage for creating or removing routing tables, but does not explicitly state when to use add vs remove or provide alternatives. However, the sibling list makes it clear when to use list_routing_tables instead.

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