Create a routing plan

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

The description is a tautology ('Create a routing plan') and adds no unique behavioral information. While annotations indicate it is a write operation and not inherently destructive, the description fails to clarify side effects, potential failures, or the nature of the resulting resource.

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 definition is concise, but the inclusion of the HTTP method and path, '(POST /routing_plans)', adds structural noise that is already strongly implied by the tool's verb and name.

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?

Since no output schema is present, the description should ideally hint at the expected return (e.g., 'Returns the created routing plan object or a success ID'). The current description provides no information about the successful outcome of the creation process.

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 provides 100% coverage for all 5 parameters. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 applies, as the description adds no semantic value beyond what is already documented in the input schema.

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 tool clearly states its purpose (Create a routing plan), which is good. However, the description lacks specificity regarding what a 'routing plan' actually entails or what resource it manages, providing little context beyond the title itself.

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 offers absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are multiple routing plan manipulation tools (list, get, update), the agent is forced to rely solely on the sibling tool list to understand the operational context.

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