pid_route_pipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It never discloses whether a new entity is created, whether existing geometry is modified or destroyed, whether a drawing must be open or in a P&ID mode, or what drawing side effects occur (e.g., layer usage, tag placement). The mention of 'flow arrow and pipe specification tag' is the only behavior beyond the tool name, leaving safety and side-effect questions unanswered.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb 'Route' leads and every word contributes. Given the 0% schema coverage and seven parameters, a second clarifying sentence about line_number or routing behavior would have been justified without harming conciseness, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity — seven parameters, four required, no annotations, and zero schema parameter descriptions — so the entire context burden falls on this one sentence. It omits when to choose this over entity_create_line, what routing produces geometrically (straight vs. orthogonal), and the meaning of line_number, though the presence of an output schema does reduce the return-value burden. For an agent selecting among a large CAD/P&ID toolset, this is not complete enough.

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 compensate, but it only maps flow_arrow and pipe_spec to real-world concepts ('flow arrow', 'pipe specification tag'). The four coordinate parameters are self-naming, and the default '4"-CS150' hints at pipe_spec format, but line_number's semantics (display format, usage, relationship to the tag) are entirely unexplained. This partial compensation keeps it above a 1 but well short of adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Route') with a clear resource ('a P&ID process line') and names distinctive features (flow arrow, pipe specification tag). It is the only pid_route_* tool among siblings, so it is readily distinguishable from the pid_insert_* symbol tools and generic entity_create_line. It loses the fifth point only because it never explicitly contrasts itself with entity_create_line for generic line work.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternative is named. The intended context is implied by the P&ID domain prefix and the phrase 'process line' — an agent would infer it is for process-line routing on P&ID drawings. Among 100+ siblings including entity_create_line and the pid_insert_* family, richer routing guidance would have helped but the implication is sufficient for a 3.

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