delete_static_route

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds 'WARNING: This is irreversible,' which goes beyond the structured hint by emphasizing the permanence of the action. While it doesn't mention the confirm safety gate or dry_run option, those are documented in the schema, and the warning provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 only two sentences, with the core action stated first and the warning front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted or redundant text.

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 rich input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple delete operation. It includes a critical warning, and the schema covers parameter details. It could optionally mention the need to apply routing changes, but this is not essential for performing the delete itself.

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%, with each parameter (route_id, confirm, dry_run, apply_immediately) having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline without compensating for gaps.

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 identifies the action ('Delete') and the target resource ('a static route') with the specific identifier ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling create/update/search static route tools, and the warning adds important context about the operation's nature.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., finding the route ID via search_static_routes), or the need to apply changes afterward. The schema parameter description mentions the ID source, but the tool description itself offers no usage context beyond the basic action.

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