update_default_gateway

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

The description aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by indicating a write operation. It adds no behavioral details beyond the structured annotations, such as apply_immediately semantics or the requirement that gateway names must exist, though the parameter schema partially covers these.

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 one short sentence with no filler words, making it front-loaded and easy to read. It is concise but borders on under-specification, conveying only the basic action without additional useful context.

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 relative simplicity and the rich schema/annotations, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks any context about when to prefer this tool over adjacent gateway-related tools, which reduces the agent's ability to select it confidently.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters, including allowed values and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('default gateway settings'), so the core purpose is understandable. However, it is somewhat generic and does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like update_gateway or explain that it sets the default IPv4/IPv6 gateway identities.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_gateway, get_default_gateway, or apply_routing_changes. No prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts are provided.

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