hookbase_create_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'creates' without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating the optional filter aspect, but it avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the 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?

For a creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after creation (e.g., returns a route ID), error conditions, or how it interacts with other tools like hookbase_get_route. The context signals indicate high complexity that isn't adequately covered.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optionally add filters' which hints at filter_id and filter_conditions, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high 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 specific action ('Create a new route') and the resource ('connecting a source to a destination'), distinguishing it from siblings like hookbase_create_source or hookbase_create_destination. It also mentions optional filtering functionality, which adds specificity beyond basic creation.

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 like hookbase_update_route or hookbase_delete_route. It mentions optional filters but doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., needing existing source/destination IDs) or when to choose inline filters versus filter_id.

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