route_apply_tuning_profile

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it assigns a profile, but does not mention side effects, such as whether existing tunings are overwritten, whether wildcards match zero or multiple nets, or whether it is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence that is direct and to the point. It contains no unnecessary information and is front-loaded with the verb and object. This is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two required parameters, but the description lacks important context such as what happens if the profile does not exist, if the net pattern matches nothing, or how wildcards work. While there is an output schema, its contents are unknown to the agent. The description covers the basic purpose but is incomplete for robust use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters. The description provides some mapping by mentioning 'named tuning profile' (profile_name) and 'net or wildcard net group' (net_pattern), but does not explain the exact format or semantics, such as wildcard syntax. It partially compensates for the schema gap but lacks detail.

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 action: 'Assign a named tuning profile to a net or wildcard net group.' It uses a specific verb ('assign'), identifies the resource ('tuning profile'), and specifies the target ('net or wildcard net group'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like route_create_tuning_profile and route_list_tuning_profiles, which have different purposes.

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 implies the usage context: it is used to apply an existing tuning profile to a net. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like route_tune_length or tune_track_length, nor does it provide workflow context (e.g., 'after creating a profile'). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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