samsara_delete_route

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states deletion is permanent, which is helpful, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of stops, impact on active drivers), required permissions, error conditions (e.g., deleting a route that is currently being followed), or any rate limits. This is minimal for a destructive operation.

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 concise sentence with four words, conveying the core action and permanence. No fluff or redundant information. It lacks minimal structure like a second sentence for usage hints, but still achieves good front-loading of the critical point.

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 simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description could be more actionable. It does not explain what happens after deletion (e.g., success message, nothing returned), error cases (e.g., invalid route ID, route not found), or how to confirm deletion. 'Permanently' is a useful warning but insufficient for safe invocation in a context-aware agent.

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 schema already documents that routeId is the ID of the route. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints (e.g., Samsara route ID pattern), source for obtaining the ID (e.g., from list_routes), or validation rules. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema covers it fully.

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 (delete) and the resource (route), and uses 'permanently' to emphasize irreversibility, distinguishing it from other tools like samsara_update_route or samsara_optimize_route. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools like samsara_delete_webhook, which share the same verb but act on different resources; the resource name in the tool name provides that distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., route must not be in progress), when not to use it (e.g., if route has active stops), or references to update or optimize tools as possible alternatives. The context from sibling tools suggests many route-related tools exist, but the description offers no decision-making help.

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