Добавить маршрут

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the write and safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context such as the two-phase confirm/dryRun mechanism, the fact that a call without confirm does nothing, or any router-side effect, so it adds no transparency beyond the 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?

The description is a single short sentence with the action immediately declared. No wasted words and no redundant restatement of schema fields or sibling names, making it a model of concise, front-loaded structure.

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 five parameters, a mandatory confirm gating behavior, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to tell the agent how to confidently invoke it. Critical semantics like preview-vs-apply and expected result are missing; the environment has to instead rely on the surrounding schema to understand the tool's full contract.

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 description coverage is 100%, with five parameters already documented, including the confirm and dryRun semantics. The description contributes nothing about these parameters, and thus stays at the baseline of 3 rather than earning additional credit.

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 uses a specific verb ('adds') and a specific resource ('static route'), making its core purpose unambiguous. It is naturally distinguished from siblings like remove_route, list_routes, and bind_route_to_vpn, though it never explicitly points to what it is not.

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 guidance about when to choose add_route over alternatives such as run_route_batch or bind_route_to_vpn, and it fails to mention the critical requirement that confirm=true is necessary to actually apply the route. The agent must infer timing from the schema, not the description.

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