create_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose meaningful process details: it creates a basic route via 'oc expose' and then patches TLS termination and path if required. However, it does not disclose behavior on conflicts, idempotency, or what happens when the target Service does not exist.

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 well organized: a front-loaded purpose statement, implementation note, and a compact Args list that adds necessary semantics missing from the schema. It is efficient, though slightly longer than the minimal get_calls model because of the parameter documentation burden.

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 8-parameter mutation tool and zero schema descriptions, the description covers all parameter meanings and explains the creation/patching behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. It could be more complete with explicit prerequisites or conflict behavior, but it is sufficient 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining every one of the 8 parameters. It adds valuable semantic detail beyond the schema, such as host empty meaning router-assigned, path default '/', tls_termination empty meaning no TLS, and port empty meaning the first port from the Service.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create an OpenShift Route by exposing a Service.' It also states the implementation approach ('Uses 'oc expose'') and optional patching of TLS termination and path, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling route tools such as list_routes, get_route, and delete_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 implies the tool is for creating routes but never says when to prefer it over alternatives like run_oc_command or any other route-creation path. It also does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool should not be used.

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