ppt_check_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool only locks the route, returns a route_workflow_id, and requires explicit user confirmation via route_confirmed. It could add more detail about side effects or reversible actions, but the 'only locks' phrasing limits ambiguity.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second explains the workflow position and output, the third lists follow-up tools. No filler.

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 description covers the workflow position and return value, and an output schema exists, so the return is partially documented. However, the 'route' parameter remains unclear, and the tool's prerequisite (e.g., that the route comes from ppt_list_routes) is only implicit via siblings. Overall it is adequate but has clear gaps in parameter context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only vaguely hints at route_confirmed through 'after the user explicitly confirms it' and does not explain what the 'route' parameter should contain (e.g., a route name or ID from ppt_list_routes). The description fails to provide useful details about either parameter.

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 opens with 'Lock a high-level route workflow after the user explicitly confirms it,' which uses a specific verb (lock) and resource (route workflow). It clearly distinguishes itself as step 1 of a guided flow, differentiating it from sibling tools like ppt_convert_pdf.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is 'step 1 of the high-level guided flow' and lists the exact sequence of subsequent tools to call (ppt_set_conversion_target, ppt_list_route_models if needed, ppt_set_route_options, ppt_convert_pdf). It also says 'It only locks the route,' clarifying what the tool does NOT do.

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