routing_exception_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool adds a rule and lists required parameters, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., idempotency, limits, or what happens on duplicate patterns). However, for an add tool, the behavioral traits are adequately implied.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, parameter explanations, and examples. It is moderately sized but every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by removing redundant repetition, but it remains clear and helpful.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain the return value or success/failure indicators. While the context signals indicate no output schema, the description should at least mention that the tool returns a confirmation or error message to be complete for a simple add operation.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by listing allowed exception_type values and explaining pattern with glob examples. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, helping the agent construct correct inputs.

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 tool adds a routing bypass rule so that matching tasks skip validate_routing_guard. It specifies the verb 'add' and the resource 'routing bypass rule', and distinguishes from siblings like routing_exception_remove and routing_exception_list.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to add an exception for validate_routing_guard) and provides context about exception_type and pattern. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for removing or listing exceptions).

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