replace_routing_code

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

Given no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it performs a full replacement (overwrites existing object), requires a two-step confirmation process, and mandates all fields. While it doesn't cover auth or rate limits, the workflow and destructive nature are well communicated.

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 concise, with two sentences covering purpose and contrast, followed by a clear workflow explanation. It is front-loaded and efficient, though some minor structural improvements could be made, such as separating the workflow into bullet points.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (4 required), an output schema exists, and the description covers the operation type, workflow, and distinguishes from a sibling. It is complete enough for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly, though additional details about response or error handling are not needed due to the output 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, except for clarifying the confirmation_token workflow (first call omit, second call include). This is acceptable but doesn't elevate the score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Fully replace a routing code' with HTTP method PUT, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'update_routing_code' by noting that all fields are required and replace the existing object entirely.

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 explicit instructions on when and how to use the tool: call without confirmation_token first to get a summary, then call again with the token for user confirmation. It also contrasts with update_routing_code, guiding the agent to use this for full replacement instead of partial update.

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