set_route_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return type (route response with success and information) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. A mutation tool like this should explicitly state that it modifies the route.

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: 4 lines with a clear summary followed by parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words, and the key action is stated first.

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?

Given the low parameter count and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value. It could be enhanced by noting the context (e.g., Autoware route setting) but is adequate for the agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minor details: 'waypoints with position and orientation' goes beyond the schema's 'Waypoints for the route'. The option parameter is described similarly to the schema. The added value is marginal.

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 indicates the tool sets a route with specific waypoints. It uses a specific verb (set) and resource (route with waypoints), and the function name and description together distinguish it from siblings like 'set_route' and 'get_current_route'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'set_route' suggests a simpler route setting without specific waypoints, but the description does not advise on choosing between them.

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