Update a paid x402 route

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

It adds a meaningful behavioral constraint beyond annotations: an Apiosk provider token is required. The safety profile is already covered by readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It stops short of describing post-update review or side effects beyond the status enum's note.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately names the operation, resource, and key editable fields, followed by the auth requirement. Every words carries information with no filler.

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 mutation tool with 12 parameters, the description plus existing schema status note and annotations provide enough operational context: what can be changed, that a token is required, and that status toggling can affect review. It does not explain every edge case, but is reasonably complete for selection and invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 8%, the description compensates partially by listing most but not all updatable fields (price, description, upstream URL, schemas, settlement address, status) and implying route_id. However, name, path, tags, and method are omitted, and field formats such as price or settlement_address remain unexplained, so some ambiguity remains.

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 states a specific action ('Update') on a specific resource ('published x402 route') and enumerates the editable fields, which clearly distinguishes it from publish, unpublish, list, and test siblings. It is directly informative rather than a tautology.

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 makes the intended context clear: use this to modify an existing published x402 route. It also notes the provider-token requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the update/publish/unpublish distinction is evident.

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