mailkite_create_route

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds a useful behavioral/operational detail: a management session token is required. This is beyond what the annotations provide and helps the agent avoid invoking the tool with the wrong authentication context.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the auth requirement is stated immediately after. It earns its place even if the parenthetical oversimplifies the optionality of some fields.

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?

The schema carries most of the parameter semantics, and the description supplies the key auth prerequisite. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns or what side effects occur beyond creating a route, and it offers no guidance on how this relates to route siblings. For a six-parameter creation tool with conditional agent fields, this is adequate but not complete.

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%, with detailed per-parameter descriptions including enums, defaults, and conditional requirements. The description's parenthetical '(match, action, destination)' is a helpful shorthand but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a route') and enumerates the core components (match, action, destination). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like mailkite_list_routes, mailkite_delete_route, or mailkite_deliver_to_route.

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 states an operational prerequisite — a management session token — which helps the agent know when the call is authorized. It does not explain when to prefer this tool over route-related siblings, nor does it mention preconditions such as a verified domain or configured webhook destination, so usage is mostly implied by the verb 'create'.

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