samsara_update_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool automatically preserves stop IDs by fetching existing ones. This goes beyond a simple 'update' statement and adds critical context. However, it does not mention idempotency, error states, or authorization requirements.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey the purpose, a critical best practice, and the scope of updates. No redundant or filler content. The critical best practice is front-loaded for immediate attention.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the most important behavior (stop ID preservation) and the scope of updates. It lacks details about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, but the schema fills in parameter details. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 adds value by explaining the automatic preservation of stop IDs, which is not evident from the schema alone. It also provides a high-level summary of what can be updated, reinforcing the schema's descriptions.

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 ('Update a route') and lists the updatable fields (name, vehicle, driver, status, stops). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create, delete, and get, though not explicitly. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 includes a 'CRITICAL BEST PRACTICE' about preserving stop IDs, providing guidance on how to use the tool correctly. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use samsara_create_route instead). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are given.

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