route_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the basic mutation intent ('Set routing style') but does not explain side effects, prerequisites, whether an existing path is required, or what happens with invalid style values. 'Phase B stub' is the only extra behavioral context, and it is too vague to be actionable.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action. 'Phase B stub' is compact, though its meaning is unclear. Every word earns its place, but the cryptic stub label reduces overall clarity.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, this description is too sparse. An agent does not know acceptable routing style values, whether the operation is currently supported, or what effects it has on the diagram. The output schema exists, so return values are less critical, but the missing usage and parameter context make this incomplete.

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, but it does not describe any parameter details. The term 'routing style' aligns with the routing_style parameter but adds no value beyond the parameter name. No valid values, enum options, or format guidance are given for the three required parameters.

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 action: 'Set routing style for a relationship path.' This names the specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_path or set_symbol_style. However, the cryptic 'Phase B stub' adds ambiguity about whether the tool is actually functional, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or whether it is ready for use. The phrase 'Phase B stub' hints that the tool may be incomplete, but it does not give explicit invocation guidance. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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