update_on_call_team_routing_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Set' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing routing rules, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial context: what routing rules are, how they're specified, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. The agent would be left guessing about the tool's behavior and results.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain beyond what the empty schema already indicates.

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 'Set a team's on-call routing rules' clearly states the action (set) and resource (team's on-call routing rules). It's specific enough to understand the tool's function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'update_on_call_escalation_policy' or 'update_on_call_schedule' which might handle related but different on-call configurations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_on_call_escalation_policy' and 'update_on_call_schedule' present, there's no indication of how routing rules differ from escalation policies or schedules, nor any prerequisites or context for when this specific update operation is appropriate.

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