route_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that routing is sequential, rip-up is bounded, units are always millimeters regardless of document settings, and that writes only occur when dry_run=false with an expected_sha256. This is substantial behavioral disclosure for an operation that can modify the design.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence provides essential behavioral or usage information. No redundant text or filler.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values do not need explanation. The description covers the critical safety workflow and key constraints (units, dry-run, SHA). It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning prerequisites like a live session or transaction, but the txid parameter hints at that, making it adequate for a complex routing 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies dry_run and expected_sha256 meanings, and 'bounded rip-up/retry' plus 'sequentially' give context for ripup_retry, max_ripup_attempts, and ordering. However, parameters like path and txid are not explained, and the connections array is only referenced via an external schema.

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 opens with 'Route multiple connections sequentially with bounded rip-up/retry,' providing a specific verb and resource. The word 'multiple' distinguishes it from the singular sibling tool route_connection, and the phrase 'bounded rip-up/retry' clarifies the method.

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 gives clear usage context: use for routing multiple connections and follow the dry-run-first workflow: 'dry_run=true previews without writing. Set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and pass its expected_sha256.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using route_connection for a single connection.

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