set_route

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Set a route' without describing side effects (e.g., overwriting the current route), asynchronous behavior, error states, or prerequisites. This is insufficient for a mutation command.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. It covers all parameters without fluff. However, the inclusion of the Returns section could be considered slightly redundant if the output schema is present, but it aids clarity.

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?

Though the output schema is marked as existing, it is not shown; the description partially compensates by noting the return includes 'success status and route information'. However, behavioral completeness is lacking, as details about side effects or prerequisites are missing for a command tool with no annotations.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the schema's parameter explanations ('Goal pose with position and orientation', 'Optional waypoints', 'Route options') without adding new semantic meaning. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no additional value is provided.

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 'Set a route' targeting a 'goal pose', establishing a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_current_route' (reading) and 'set_route_points' (alternative method), making the tool's purpose 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_route_points'. Usage is implied as the standard method to set a route to a goal pose, but exclusions and preferences are absent.

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