create_static_route

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the write-and-not-destructive profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the route is active immediately, any side effects, or whether an explicit apply step is required. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description does not go beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise and gets straight to the point. While it is under-specified, it does not waste words, earning a high score on conciseness and 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?

Given the tool's 5 parameters, the presence of an output schema, and the existence of related sibling tools like apply_routing_changes, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that creating a static route may require applying routing changes to take effect, nor does it explain the typical workflow. The schema covers parameter details, but operational context is missing, making this a significant gap for an AI agent.

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 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, including explanations for network, gateway, descr, disabled, and apply_immediately. Therefore, the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description itself provides no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 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 'Create a static route' clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (static route). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_static_route and delete_static_route by the action verb. However, it is a minimal restatement of the tool name and provides no additional context about the purpose or nature of static routes, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, whether any prerequisites exist (e.g., the gateway must exist, as noted in the schema), or that changes may need to be applied via apply_routing_changes. This leaves the agent without enough context to decide between this and related tools.

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