apply_route_plan

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that dry_run=true is non-writing and that expected_sha256 must match after preview, implying a safety check. It lacks details on error behavior, reversibility, or what happens on hash mismatch.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and all details are relevant. No fluff or repetition of schema 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?

With an output schema present, return values are likely covered. The description covers the core workflow and safety mechanism but omits behavior on hash mismatch and txid semantics, leaving minor gaps for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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?

The description adds meaning to dry_run and expected_sha256 beyond their names, explaining their roles in the preview/commit flow. It does not explain txid, and plan_id is only implicitly referenced, leaving some parameter coverage gaps despite 0% schema coverage.

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 stages or commits a stored local route plan atomically, with a specific verb ('stage or commit') and resource ('stored local route plan'). The dry-run language separates it from sibling route-planning tools, such as plan_route_nets or commit_transaction.

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?

It provides an explicit two-phase workflow: run with dry_run=true to preview, then inspect and set dry_run=false with expected_sha256. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusions.

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