fleetsync_create_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does mention query options (update, updateAddressGps, mergeAddresses) which hint at behaviors like merging addresses or updating GPS, but it does not explain side effects, return values, or edge cases. This partial disclosure is better than nothing but leaves significant gaps.

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 highly concise, two sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with essential requirements and options. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is surprisingly brief. It gives the essential creation context and lists parameters, but lacks guidance on response behavior, potential updates if the route exists, or any constraints. The schema mitigates parameter confusion, but the tool-level context remains thin.

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 covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description merely lists a subset of optional fields and query options without adding any new meaning or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema handles the semantics.

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 opens with 'Create a new route in FleetSync', which is a clear, specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get, update, delete) and includes key prerequisites (Requires Code and Date).

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 clearly indicates this is for creating a new route and lists required and optional fields, giving practical context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, such as references to fleetsync_update_route for existing routes.

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