Manage Static Route

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explicitly mentioning idempotency checks for add operations and support for dry-run mode. This provides useful behavioral context not present in the annotations alone.

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 (14 words) and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second adds key behavioral details. No unnecessary information.

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's complexity (10 parameters, destructive, idempotent), the description covers core behaviors (idempotency checks, dry-run) adequately. It does not cover the confirmation workflow or return values, but these are partially inferred from the schema and annotations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents parameters clearly. The description adds general context about idempotency and dry-run but does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema 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 clearly states 'Add or remove a static route on a MikroTik router', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage other resources like routing tables or rules.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., manage_routing_rule, list_routes), the agent would benefit from such context.

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