disable_route

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate these. The description adds the route_id format note, which is useful but more about parameter semantics than behavioral traits. No additional behavioral context (e.g., reversibility, state requirements) is provided.

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 extremely concise, with a single clear action sentence and a brief parameter note. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple tool with an output schema and adequate annotations, the description covers the core action and the critical route_id format. It does not explain the device parameter or provide usage alternatives, but the overall completeness is sufficient for a straightforward disable operation.

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 clarify parameters. It does explain route_id format ('*N' or 'N' from list output), which is helpful for the required parameter. However, the optional device parameter is left ambiguous, and the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Disables a route' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like enable_route, remove_route, and update_route. It also adds a note about route_id format, reinforcing the purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to disable a route) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over enable_route or remove_route, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool name and context.

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