configure_routing

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Add or update' implying a mutation, but does not mention idempotency, permission requirements, side effects, or what happens on conflict. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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: a single sentence preamble followed by a focused bullet list for each parameter. No redundant information, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (3 required params, mutation, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. The output schema exempts return value explanation. However, some behavioral context (e.g., whether it overwrites existing rules) would improve completeness.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: task_type includes an example, tier enumerates valid values (haiku, sonnet, opus), and reason explains its purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('Add or update') and the resource ('routing rule for a task type'). It effectively captures the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'recommend_model' and 'opus_test', though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. This omission leaves the AI agent without decision support.

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