create_ux_app_route

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds little beyond confirming the write, with no disclosure of potential errors, required permissions, or idempotency behavior.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence plus a [Write] tag. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning a high score for brevity.

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 creation tool, the description lacks crucial context such as return value (no output schema), error handling for duplicate routes, and required permissions. The available annotations provide some safety info, but the overall completeness is insufficient for an agent to use the tool without further assumptions.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the tool description does not add further semantic detail. The schema-level descriptions like 'Route path' and 'Target UIB page sys_id' are minimal but sufficient, meeting the baseline.

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 operation (register) and the resource (a route/URL path in a UX app). It is specific enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like create_uib_page or create_ux_experience, though it doesn't explicitly call them out.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling tools.

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