create_ux_app_route

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

The description includes a redundant '[Write]' tag, which echoes the readOnlyHint=false annotation without adding new behavioral information. It does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether duplicate routes are allowed or if existing routes are overwritten. Given that annotations already indicate a write operation, the description fails to add extra 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 extremely concise at one sentence and a tag. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices useful information that could be added in minimal space. The '[Write]' tag is redundant and does not contribute to understanding.

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 has four parameters, no output schema, and is a write operation, the description lacks completeness. It does not state what is returned after creation (e.g., the sys_id of the new route) or mention that the app and page must already exist. Users must rely solely on schema annotations for context.

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 input schema provides clear descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. However, it adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, such as the expected format of the path or the relationship between app_sys_id and page_sys_id. This is an adequate baseline.

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 'Register a new route (URL path) in a UX app', specifying the verb (register), the resource (route), and the context (UX app). This distinguishes it from other create tools, such as create_uib_page or create_ux_experience, which are explicitly different entities.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the app_sys_id must correspond to an existing UX app) or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. Users are left to infer context from the schema alone.

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