update_route_destination

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the timing semantics ('Deposits after this point are paid out to the new address'), which is real value beyond the schema, but omits permission/whitelist prerequisites, whether the new address must be pre-registered, irreversibility, and error behavior for an operation with direct payout impact.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the behavioral timing note follows immediately, so nothing is buried.

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 5-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the key post-change effect. The gap is the absence of any prerequisite or safety context (e.g., address/rail validation or whitelisting) given there are no annotations to carry it.

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% and both enums (currency, payment rail) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource in the first clause ('Change the payout wallet on an existing payment route'), leaving no ambiguity about the operation. It also scopes it to existing routes, distinguishing it from route-creation flows ('rather than creating a second 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?

It gives a clear triggering condition ('use it when a customer rotates wallets') and explicitly contrasts it with the alternative of creating a second route. It stops short of naming a specific sibling tool or stating exclusions/prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.

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