put--v3-routes-id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update a route' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, as critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error cases) and return values, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context is insufficient.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's details (e.g., 'id' for route identifier, 'priority' for ordering). This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 'Update a route' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('route'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of a route can be updated or distinguish this from other route-related tools like 'get--v3-routes' or 'get--v3-routes-id', leaving it somewhat vague compared to siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing route ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get--v3-routes' (list routes) or 'post--v3-routes' (create route), leaving the agent with no usage context.

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