fleetsync_update_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing FleetSync route' and lists parameters, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, error behavior, or what happens when the route does not exist. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a clear enumeration of required and optional fields. Every word earns its place.

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 full schema coverage, the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, side effects, dependencies between parameters (e.g., whether update and mergeAddresses are mutually exclusive), or typical usage patterns. It feels incomplete for such a complex mutation tool.

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%, so the schema already describes every parameter. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, merely echoing the parameter names and optionality. It does not clarify the meaning of 'Query options' beyond their schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Update an existing FleetSync route.' This specifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_route, delete_route, and get_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?

The description provides context by stating that Code is required and other fields are optional, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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