routing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a genuinely important quirk: routes use 'enabled' while gateways use 'disabled,' so toggling means the opposite thing on each. However, it does not warn that delete/toggle operations are mutating, that changes may be staged, or that confirmation tokens are needed, so the behavioral picture remains incomplete.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states scope, the second warns about a non-obvious toggling asymmetry, and the third tells the agent how to get action-specific rules. There is no filler or repetition.

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 is complex: 13 parameters, 10 actions, and no output schema, so the description alone is light. The action='help' directive mitigates this by pointing to authoritative per-action rules, but the description does not cover overall workflows like list-then-confirm or whether changes apply immediately. It is adequate as a pointer but not fully self-sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds crucial parameter semantics by explaining that 'enabled' vs 'disabled' has inverted meaning for routes vs gateways, which is not obvious from the schema's 'Target state, set explicitly rather than flipped.' It also directs the agent to action='help' for per-action field details.

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 the resource domain as 'Static routes and gateways,' which clearly distinguishes it from dynamic routing siblings like bgp. It lacks an explicit verb like 'manage' or 'configure,' but the action enum in the schema supplies the operation vocabulary.

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 'Static routes and gateways' implies when this tool should be used, but it never names an alternative or states when not to use it. The instruction to call action='help' for each action's fields and rules is useful for learning the tool, but it is not guidance about selecting between sibling tools.

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