route_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation operation, implying a write/mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a route ID). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, 7 required, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the context of what a 'route' is, how it integrates with Edge Routines, or what the tool returns. For a creation tool with no structured output information, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 all 9 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and requirements. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying association with an Edge Routine, which is partially covered by the 'routineName' parameter in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('a new route associated with an Edge Routine'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'routine_route_list' or 'site_route_list' which might list routes, nor does it explain what a 'route' is in this context beyond the association with ER.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing Edge Routine or site), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'route_update' or 'route_delete' for related operations. Usage is implied only by the action 'Create'.

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