Привязать маршрут к VPN

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

Annotations indicate a read-write, non-destructive, idempotent operation, and the description adds the key behavioral fact that traffic is sent through an existing VPN interface via policy-based routing. It does not explain behavior on failure, effect on existing routes, or whether the operation only becomes real when confirm=true; the confirm/dryRun semantics are left to the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It directly explains what the tool does and adds one useful qualifier ('already configured') that helps an agent avoid misuse.

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?

With schema coverage at 100% and annotations covering idempotence and non-destructiveness, the description is adequate for identifying the operation. Still, it does not specify what the agent should do when using dryRun or confirm beyond the schema, nor does it explain the return behavior or the exact relationship with sibling tools like unbind_route_from_vpn. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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%, so the input schema already documents network, mask, target, dryRun, and confirm with examples and meanings. The tool description adds only high-level context ('specified network', 'VPN interface') and does not materially improve on the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 identifies a specific verb+resource: it directs traffic of a specified network through an already-configured VPN interface. It also names the mechanism (policy-based routing), which clearly distinguishes this tool from generic add_route or unbind_route_from_vpn. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 phrase 'already configured VPN interface' implies the prerequisite that a VPN interface must exist and that this tool is not for VPN setup. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer bind_route_to_vpn over add_route, nor when to use unbind_route_from_vpn for reversal. The usage context is inferable but not explicitly routed.

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