cf_map_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: not whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the route or hostname already exists, what permissions are required, or what the result looks like. It adds no trait beyond what the verb 'map' already implies.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with zero waste, which suits a simple tool. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 state-mutating tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits behavioral expectations, prerequisites, and result semantics. An agent would have to rely almost entirely on the schema and surrounding naming conventions.

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%, and each parameter has a short inline description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional semantics (e.g., how path and hostname interact, or whether path should include a leading slash), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Map) and resource (route to an application), so the operation is immediately recognizable. It does not explicitly address its counterpart cf_unmap_route, but naming both sides is not strictly necessary here since the verb is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a logged-in session, a targeted org/space, or an existing app before the route can be mapped. The agent must infer all of this from the sibling list.

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