Отвязать маршрут от VPN

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate basic safety. It adds the core behavioral effect ('removes binding') but does not mention reversibility side effects, or any need to satisfy confirmation conditions beyond what the schema provides.

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 efficient sentence that immediately states the action and target. It has no fluff or redundancy, and all words carry meaning.

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 simple mutation tool, the description conveys the main effect, and the schema provides additional details about dryRun and confirm. However, it does not clarify that the operation depends on confirm=true, nor does it mention the relationship to bind_route_to_vpn, so the agent must infer some workflow 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?

The input schema has descriptions only for dryRun and confirm, leaving network and mask effectively undocumented. The description mentions 'network' as the target of the unbinding, but it does not explain the network/mask pairing or how these identify the route. With only 50% schema coverage, the description does not adequately compensate.

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 action ('removes the binding') and the resource ('network to VPN interface'), so an agent can understand the core operation. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like remove_route and bind_route_to_vpn by its wording, although it does not explicitly name the counterpart.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bind_route_to_vpn, add_route, or remove_route. It relies on the tool name and the agent's inference, rather than explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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