save_route

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It labels the tool as an update but does not describe what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or idempotency. This leaves significant gaps 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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the purpose and immediately following with actionable usage details. Every sentence 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?

Given 13 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description addresses update semantics and a few parameter constraints, but omits return value, error handling, and partial update behavior, leaving moderate gaps for a complex 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by highlighting the joint requirement for 'controller' and 'controller_method' and the notion of 'significant routes' needing context fields. This compensates for the remaining 23% schema coverage gap.

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 'Update a route/page' as the verb and resource, distinguishing it from 'create_route' among siblings. However, it could be more precise by explicitly contrasting with creation or other operations.

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?

It provides specific guidance: wire to controller with both UUIDs, and include context fields for significant routes. This helps the agent know prerequisites and optional fields, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use context against alternatives like 'create_route'.

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