update-route

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It fails to disclose whether the update is partial or full, what happens if the route does not exist, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with annotations, more context is expected.

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 no wasted words. However, it is minimal and misses opportunities to include important behavioral or usage details, making it slightly less than perfect conciseness.

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 (5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, annotations present), the description lacks critical context such as update behavior (partial vs full), error conditions, and return value. It covers purpose but not comprehensive guidance.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists the fields (public URL path, custom domain, service target, exposed port) but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no format hints or relationships).

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 the verb 'Update' and specifies the resource 'Bult route configuration', listing the elements (public URL path, custom domain, service target, exposed port). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create-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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or relation to sibling tools like create-route or delete-route.

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