Enable or disable a Lucky route

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by saying 'without deleting it.' It also clarifies that the operation changes the route's enabled state. It does not mention potential side effects like immediate traffic cutoff, but given the annotation coverage and the simple nature of the toggle, the added context is sufficient.

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 that front-loads the action and key scope ('reverse-proxy route') before the clarification. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 two-parameter toggle with annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It does not mention the response format (no output schema) or immediate effects, but these are minor given the simplicity and the presence of idempotent/non-destructive hints. It is complete enough for a straightforward operation.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only indirectly references 'hostname' (likely domain) and 'enable or disable' (likely enabled), but it does not explicitly define the parameters, their types, or any constraints. The agent must infer parameter meaning from the action, which is minimal compensation for zero schema coverage.

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 (enable/disable), the resource (reverse-proxy route), and the identifying scope (hostname). It distinguishes from sibling set_enabled tools by specifying 'reverse-proxy route' and adds 'without deleting it' to clarify the non-destructive nature, which is more specific than many siblings.

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 (when you want to toggle a route's enabled state) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It does not say 'use this instead of X' or provide exclusions, though the resource-specific wording gives a hint. The agent can infer from the name and sibling list, but explicit guidance is missing.

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