APISIX-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Create a route' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits - no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, error conditions, or what happens when conflicts occur with existing routes.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide any useful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool correctly, making it inefficient despite its 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 complex creation tool with 2 parameters (one being a highly nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what a route is, how it fits into the API gateway, what happens after creation, or any behavioral aspects - leaving the agent to guess based solely on the schema.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds zero semantic information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, provide examples, or clarify complex nested structures like the upstream configuration object.

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 'Create a route' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what a 'route' is in this system, what resources it affects, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_stream_route' or 'update_route'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus 'update_route' or 'create_stream_route', or any context about its role in the API gateway ecosystem.

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