Add a route

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: this is a write, it is gated on confirm: true, and critically it has no server-side dry run, so the client-side preview is the only safety net. That is exactly the kind of risk context an agent needs before a mutation. It stops short of describing side effects (notifications firing) or error 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the execution gate. The endpoint parenthetical is mildly redundant but aids traceability; nothing else is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a nested required body, the description covers the write-gate well but omits what a created route contains, what the preview response looks like, and how the events/minSeverity fields shape routing. Adequate but leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 67% and the description reinforces the most consequential parameter, confirm, which the schema also documents. But the required nested body object (channelId, events, minSeverity, clientId) receives no explanation in the description, so an agent gets no extra meaning about what a route's event filter or severity threshold does beyond the raw 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 description states a specific verb and resource ("Add a route") and pins it to the concrete endpoint POST /v1/notification-routes, which distinguishes it from sibling route tools like notifications_listRoutes and notifications_deleteRoute. It does not explicitly contrast itself with notifications_createChannel, but the resource noun 'route' is unambiguous enough for selection.

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?

It conveys the key usage condition for the confirm gate (nothing executes without confirm: true), which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to act. However, it gives no guidance on prerequisites (e.g. needing a channelId from notifications_listChannels) or when to choose a route over a channel subscription.

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