create_move_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and states 'Read-only' and the return shape '{ moveRoute, warnings? }'. It does not elaborate on limits or error cases, but for a read-only builder this is adequate and exceeds the baseline.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key characteristics, then immediately provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the tool's role, output shape, and two integration methods. Combined with thorough schema coverage, this provides a complete context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the 'pattern' parameter and the overall approach, which is acceptable.

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 tool 'builds a movement route from a named pattern', specifying the verb (build), resource (movement route), and scope (from pattern vs raw codes). It also distinguishes itself from raw move-command codes and references sibling tools, making its 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 clear guidance on how and where to use the output (as an autonomous moveRoute in update_map_event or fed to set_movement_route). It says 'instead of raw move-command codes', implicitly showing when to prefer this tool, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative build tools.

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