opnsense_route_apply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'reconfigure routing', which indicates a change to the routing table, but does not mention any prerequisites, side effects (e.g., temporary disruption), or whether the operation is idempotent. This is insufficient transparency for a mutation tool.

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 that directly states the purpose. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no superfluous information.

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?

For a simple no-parameter tool, the description is brief but marginally complete. However, it lacks explanation of the effect (e.g., whether it applies immediately or requires a reboot) and does not mention any expected outcome. Given no output schema, slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. Per scoring guidelines, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed.

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 verb 'apply' and the resource 'static route configuration changes', distinguishing it from sibling tools that add, delete, update, or list routes, as well as the sibling 'opnsense_route_gateway_apply' for gateway changes.

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?

The description implies usage after modifying static routes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'opnsense_route_gateway_apply' or when not to use it. Lacks explicit guidance but is clear enough for an agent familiar with common patterns.

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