Manage Routing Table

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

The description states 'remove' which implies destructive action, but annotations set destructiveHint=false. This contradiction misleads about the tool's potential to destroy data. The description adds idempotency and dry-run context, but the contradiction overrides.

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 a single sentence that packs core actions, idempotency, and dry-run mode efficiently. It is concise but could be slightly more structured with separate sentences for clarity.

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 (5 params, 2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and key behaviors. However, it lacks explanation of side effects (e.g., what 'remove' entails) and usage context.

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 the schema already documents parameters. The description adds idempotency context for the 'name' parameter and mentions dry-run, but does not add new meaning 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 the tool creates or removes custom routing tables, specifies idempotency by table name, and mentions dry-run support. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_routing_tables' by focusing on mutation.

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 implies usage for adding or removing routing tables but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are provided.

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