update_static_route

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

The annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no additional context. It does not disclose partial-update semantics, whether changes apply immediately, or what happens on failure.

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 sentence with no redundancy, front-loaded with the verb and object. It is appropriately concise and every word earns its place.

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 relatively simple and the schema and output schema exist, but the description omits important context such as whether the update is partial (only provided fields changed) and the role of apply_immediately or apply_routing_changes. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 all 6 parameters are already well-described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('static route') with an identifier ('by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from create/delete/search siblings. It accurately states what the tool does.

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. It does not mention prerequisites like obtaining the route_id from search_static_routes, nor does it explain when to use create/delete/apply routing changes instead.

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