Удалить маршрут

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with these (no contradiction). It does not, however, add any behavioral context beyond them — e.g., that changes only take effect when confirm=true or that the RCI payload can be previewed via dryRun — although those semantics are at least present in the schema parameter descriptions.

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 Russian sentence with no padding and the action verb front-loaded. It is appropriately small for a verb+resource definition, though it uses none of its space to convey routing guidance or behavioral hints that would raise its value.

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 mutating tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description "deletes a static route" is quite thin. It does not indicate what the agent should expect after invocation (result payload, success/failure semantics), that confirm=true is mandatory for applying and dryRun is available for preview sums (these live only in the parameter-level schema), or what happens to routes currently bound to VPNs.

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 50%: dryRun and confirm are well described in the schema itself, so the description only needs to help with network and mask. It implicitly indicates that the two parameters identify a static route, but gives no format guidance (CIDR vs. netmask, IPv4/IPv6). The description therefore adds only marginal value over the schema and does not fully compensate for the two undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Удаляет' — deletes) and a specific resource ('статический маршрут' — static route), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like add_route, list_routes, and bind_route_from_vpn. It adds the qualifier 'статический', which goes slightly beyond the title. However, it never explicitly contrasts with any sibling, so it doesn't fully maximize this dimension.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_route_batch, remove_port_forward, or unbind_route_from_vpn. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen, what prerequisites exist (e.g., the route must already exist), or what cases it is not suited for.

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