Set network site route mode

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

Goes far beyond the annotations: dhcp routes take effect at lease renewal (~30 min) or renew/restart and never on fixed-address servers, while router applies immediately; changes move all VPNs at once; 409 while a server is abuse-suspended; requires networking:read/networking:manage; backend enforces ownership, feature availability and 2FA locks. It also explains pending-operation polling via in_progress/reason_code and instructs preserving the key and never auto-retrying on transport uncertainty.

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 content is dense and front-loads the core mode semantics well, but it is delivered as one long run-on paragraph mixing mode behavior, permissions, and generic async-polling/retry boilerplate. Several clauses (polling, reason_code preservation, retry rules) read as reusable boilerplate rather than tool-specific guidance, hurting 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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the side effects (all VPNs move at once), permission model, failure mode (409 suspended), and how to track and verify the asynchronous operation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and confirm it safely is missing.

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 only 50% and route_mode has no schema description, but the description richly compensates by defining both 'dhcp' and 'router' behavior, timing, and side effects. network_id is already documented in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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?

States a specific verb (set/choose) and resource (network site route mode) and defines both enum values: 'dhcp = DHCP classless static routes' and 'router = an internal network router carries the routes at once'. The purpose is unambiguous, but it never names or contrasts a sibling tool (e.g. set_network_routed_egress), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives clear context and prerequisites: 'Read current capabilities and owned resource state first; obtain approval for the exact change', and states an explicit non-applicability case ('Has no effect on a network with a NAT gateway'). It does not, however, point to alternative tools for related routing tasks, so no exclusions against siblings.

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