post_routers_configs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds authorization requirement information, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose idempotency, error conditions, or side effects beyond creation. The permission detail adds some value, resulting in a mid-range score.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with dash-separated elements (purpose, permission, endpoint). It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no wasted words. Every element serves a purpose, achieving high efficiency.

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?

The tool creates a resource but lacks details about the response (e.g., what the created config looks like, if an ID is returned). Given no output schema, the description should provide this context. It also does not mention relationships to routers or prerequisites. The information is insufficient for full understanding.

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%: both 'nickname' and 'routerConfigJson' are described in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'router config', and includes the endpoint. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_routers_configs_tls', which also creates a router config but for TLS. The purpose is specific but could benefit from distinguishing from similar creation tools.

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 a required permission ('Device command and configuration, Edit.'), which gives some context on when it can be used. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., put_routers_configs_by_config_id for updates) or any prerequisites. The usage context is minimal.

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