import_autorouter_ses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains the transactional nature, the non-writing preview mode, and the integrity requirement of expected_sha256 for committing. This is meaningful safety context, though it does not detail error conditions or side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase earns its place. It conveys the core logic and safety constraint without redundancy.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks context on how to obtain the plan_id (e.g., from inspect_autorouter_result) and what txid represents. It also does not mention prerequisites for using this tool, leaving gaps for a tool that commits changes transactionally.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains dry_run and expected_sha256, but does not explain plan_id (required) or txid, leaving ambiguity about their meanings and usage. This partial compensation is helpful but incomplete.

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 dual function: 'Preview or commit a previously inspected SES route plan transactionally.' It uses a specific verb ('preview or commit') and resource ('SES route plan'), which distinguishes it from generic transaction tools like preview_transaction 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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'dry_run=true previews without writing' and instructs to set 'dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and pass its expected_sha256.' This provides a clear workflow, though it does not explicitly mention 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.