cf_configure_routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only restates what the tool does without disclosing effects on existing state. It does not say whether configuring routes replaces or appends existing routes, whether api_key is required for every call, or what happens after routes are applied — critical unknowns for a mutating configuration tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence of nine words delivers the verb, the resources, and the plan constraint with zero filler. The most important noun ('Worker routes') appears immediately after the verb, and the '(Pro)' qualifier earns its place by carrying plan-level information.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the domain and the plan requirement but misses operational details an agent needs to call it correctly: how routes and custom_domain relate, what route pattern syntax is permitted beyond the single example, and what a successful configuration returns. It is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds contextual framing by naming the three concerns (Worker routes, custom domains, path-based routing) that map onto the routes and custom_domain parameters. It does not go beyond the schema to clarify the interaction between parameters, such as whether routes and custom_domain are mutually exclusive, combinable, or one-required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Configure') with concrete resources ('Worker routes, custom domains, and path-based routing'), which precisely identifies the operation for the Cloudflare Worker family. It is clearly distinguishable from routing siblings (nginx_generate_proxy, proxy_add_routing) and from generation tools like cf_generate_worker and cf_add_kv_storage, which use different verbs and resources.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the tool configures routes on an existing Worker, so an agent would infer that a Worker must already exist, and the '(Pro)' suffix implies a Cloudflare Pro plan requirement. However, the description names no alternatives and provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the preconditions.

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