routing_app_coverages_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states nothing about permissions/authentication required, side effects, idempotency, or what the create operation returns. Pointing at an OpenAPI schema is a request-shape pointer, not behavioral context, leaving a mutation tool with essentially zero disclosure.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the endpoint front-loaded, which is efficient. But the parenthetical literally repeats the same path given immediately before it, which is wasteful redundancy rather than earned 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?

For a create tool with a required nested JSON:API body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate what goes in the body or what the operation affects. Instead the actual body shape is deferred entirely to an unresolved external schema reference, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct call from this definition alone.

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 3 applies. However the single body parameter is described only as a reference ("Shape: components.schemas.RoutingAppCoverageCreateRequest") in both schema and description, and the schema itself is an additionalProperties:{} bag with no concrete shape, so the description adds no real meaning beyond repeating the same reference.

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 is essentially an HTTP route restatement ("POST /v1/routingAppCoverages") of what the tool name already encodes via the create_instance suffix. It never explains in plain terms what a routing app coverage is or what creating one accomplishes. This is tautological rather than a specific verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent must infer from POST semantics alone that this creates a resource, and nothing distinguishes it from the many other *_create_instance siblings. No prerequisites or context are given.

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