Update a routing plan

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

Annotations already declare the mutation and idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint, notably omitting whether PUT means full replacement of unspecified fields, what permissions are needed, or what happens to omitted routing_objects.

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 two short fragments with no waste, so it is not bloated. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: the space saved carries no useful information for the agent.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: whether it is a full PUT replacement, which fields are mandatory (name plus id), and what the response returns. The endpoint string alone is not sufficient context to call this safely.

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%, so the schema already documents id, name, did, description, routing_objects and response_format. The description contributes no extra parameter meaning, but per the high-coverage baseline a 3 is appropriate.

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 tool name and title verbatim ("Update a routing plan") and adds only the HTTP endpoint. It gives no indication of what aspects of a routing plan can be changed (name, did, routing_objects) or how this differs from create_routing_plan or update_routing.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of the obvious siblings (create_routing_plan, delete_routing_plan, simulate_routing_plan). The only signal is the PUT path, from which an agent must infer that this replaces an existing plan.

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