Update routing

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation; the description adds nothing about what a PUT replaces, whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, or what permissions are required. The only extra information is the raw endpoint path, which the agent can derive from the schema anyway.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency: two fragments, one a tautology of the title and one a raw path template. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the verb, leaving no actionable content.

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?

With 15 parameters including many nested schemaless objects, a mutation, no output schema, and no annotations bridging the gap, the description should carry substantial weight. Instead it provides none of it, leaving an agent unable to call this correctly without guessing the shape of the routing payload.

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?

Although nominal schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are pure placeholders ('Body field api.', 'Body field name.', 'Path parameter number_or_id.') and the nested objects are untyped additionalProperties, so effectively no semantics are conveyed anywhere. The description does not clarify the key ambiguity for a PUT on 15 optional body fields: whether it is a full replacement or a partial merge, nor what the nested objects (ivr, plan, queue, forward, mailbox, time_settings) should contain.

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 restates the title ('Update routing') and adds only the HTTP endpoint (PUT /routings/{number_or_id}). It does not say what a 'routing' is, what aspects are being updated, or how it differs from sibling tools such as placetel_create_routing, placetel_delete_routing, or placetel_update_routing_plan.

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 tool versus placetel_create_routing, placetel_get_routing, placetel_delete_routing, or placetel_update_routing_plan. No prerequisites, no mention that the routing must already exist, and no exclusion of alternatives.

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