Manage Routing Rule

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds concrete detail about the composite key ensuring idempotency and the dry-run feature for safe preview. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states actions and idempotency key, the second mentions dry-run. Every word adds value. Highly efficient.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers idempotency behavior and dry-run. It could elaborate on effect of actions when rules conflict, but given the annotations and schema richness, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the composite key but that is a combination of parameters, not individual semantics.

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 starts with 'Add, remove, enable, or disable a policy routing rule', providing a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_route (which likely handles route entries) and manage_routing_table, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 includes behavioral guidance: idempotency based on a composite key (srcAddress+dstAddress+interface+table) and availability of a dry-run mode. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, the specificity of policy routing rules among many sibling tools implies its context.

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