set_number_routing

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'CHANGES THE SIPGATE ACCOUNT'. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining that the tool reads and returns the number's before/after state, which is not present in the annotations or schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The most important intent ('CHANGES THE SIPGATE ACCOUNT') is front-loaded, then the action and return behavior are stated compactly.

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?

With full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and a description that explains the mutation and return value, the definition is mostly complete. It could optionally mention that number_id comes from list_numbers, but the schema already covers that, so nothing critical is missing for this simple two-parameter tool.

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%: both number_id and endpoint_id are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: route a phone number to a sipgate endpoint ID, and clearly identifies the affected resource. The explicit 'CHANGES THE SIPGATE ACCOUNT' framing distinguishes it from sibling get_routing, and the before/after state note clarifies what the tool does.

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 clear this is a mutation tool for setting routing, contrasting with the sibling get_routing. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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