Manage Routing Rule

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the composite key (srcAddress+dstAddress+interface+table) explaining how idempotency works. It also discloses dry-run mode. No contradictions.

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. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds key behavioral traits (idempotency and dry-run).

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operations, idempotency, and dry-run. It could mention the priority field's role, but the schema already documents it.

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 coverage, the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the idempotency key composition and dry-run purpose. The schema already describes each parameter clearly.

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 verb (Add, remove, enable, disable) and resource (policy routing rule). It also highlights idempotency and dry-run mode, distinguishing it from sibling tools like manage_route or manage_routing_table.

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 mentions idempotency and dry-run but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no when-not or comparison to siblings such as manage_route or list_routing_rules.

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