Manage Routing Table

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds value by specifying idempotency key (table name) and dry-run support, giving deeper behavioral insight beyond the annotation flags.

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 the core action, zero wasted words. Every sentence provides distinct value (action, idempotency, dry-run).

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 simple CRUD tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects. Missing edge case details (e.g., behavior on duplicate adds) but overall sufficient given low complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions idempotency by table name, which aligns with the 'name' parameter description, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 creates or removes custom routing tables, with specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling manage_* tools by the resource type and adds idempotency and dry-run details.

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 use for creating or removing routing tables but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. It is clear but lacks direct usage boundaries.

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