device_route_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and constraints. It indicates a mutating create operation and the same-unit rule, but does not mention permissions, whether the operation fails on unmet constraints, idempotency, or what happens if a route already exists. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 compact, using two short sentences that front-load the primary action and then add the essential constraint. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool, the description conveys the action, the involved resources, and a critical precondition. With no output schema and no annotations, a brief note on the response or failure behavior would improve completeness, but the core information needed to attempt the call correctly is present.

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 complete descriptions for both deviceId and applicationId (100% coverage), so the schema documents the parameters adequately. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond naming the entities involved, which aligns with the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 clear action ('Create a device route') and explicit resources ('device' and 'application'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from bulk/range variants by focusing on a single route, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 a useful prerequisite ('Both must belong to the same unit'), giving context for when the call may be valid. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over device_route_bulk_create or device_route_range_create, leaving usage differentiation to inference from the name.

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