update_routing_code

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are modified') but omits details like authorization, side effects, error handling, or HTTP method (though implied by PATCH in endpoint). Adequate but could be richer.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. First sentence provides endpoint and method, second sentence clarifies behavior. Every word earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description covers the core behavioral trait (partial update). However, lacks prerequisites (e.g., routing code must exist) or potential error conditions. Moderate completeness for a simple update.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'Omit to leave unchanged' already in schema. No new insights about parameter formats or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'routing code', and specifies it is a partial update (PATCH). It distinguishes from sibling 'replace_routing_code' which would be a full replacement.

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?

Implicitly clarifies when to use (partial update) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives like 'replace_routing_code'. Sibling context helps but description lacks direct guidance.

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