Delete Static Route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that deletion is destructive/irreversible, not permission or dependency requirements (does deleting a route affect traffic?), not whether it needs confirmation. A bare 'delete' phrase on a mutation tool is inadequate.

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 text is short but under-specified rather than concise; it is essentially a translated tool name and contains no front-loaded context that would help an agent act. Length is not the problem — absence of content is.

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 simple (one required integer) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, with zero annotations and no parameter documentation, an agent cannot tell how to source the route_id or what the side effects of deletion are; more description was warranted.

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 single required parameter route_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about it — no format, no indication of how to obtain a valid ID (e.g. from list_static_routes). The one parameter that determines whether the call succeeds is entirely undocumented.

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 phrase '删除静态路由' (delete static route) states a clear verb+resource, so the agent knows the operation. However it offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings such as delete_vlan, delete_dhcp_static_binding, or the companion list_static_routes/add_static_route, so it barely clears the minimum-viable bar.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. list_static_routes to find the ID, or how it differs from delete_vlan). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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