apply_routing_changes

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about 'pending' changes and batch application, which aligns with the idempotentHint and does not contradict any annotations.

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 just two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the key usage trigger. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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?

This is a simple, no-parameter apply tool with an output schema. The description covers what is applied (routing changes), when to use it (after deferred changes), and the scope (gateways, static routes, gateway groups). Given the low complexity, the description is complete.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps since there are none.

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 specifies the verb 'apply' and the resource 'pending routing changes', explicitly enumerating gateways, static routes, and gateway groups. This clearly distinguishes it from other apply_* sibling tools that target different resource types.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after making changes with apply_immediately=False. It provides clear context for batch application, though it doesn't name exclusion scenarios or alternatives beyond the implied scope of 'routing'.

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