fleetsync_delete_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'This action is irreversible,' a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, side effects on dependent orders, or what the response contains. These omissions leave room for improvement, though the irreversibility statement adds real value.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core action ('Delete a FleetSync route') and then add the consequence ('irreversible'). No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter delete operation, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the target, the identifier, and the irreversible side effect. It does not specify return semantics or error handling, but no output schema exists; still, the core information is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 the 'code' parameter described as 'Route code to delete.' The description's phrase 'by its code' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies when schema fully documents parameters.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Delete a FleetSync route by its code' – a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like fleetsync_create_route or fleetsync_update_route. The irreversibility warning further clarifies the action's nature.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fleetsync_update_route for modifications or fleetsync_delete_order for orders. No prerequisites or conditions (e.g., whether the route must be inactive) are mentioned.

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