opnsense_route_gateway_update

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

Discloses round-trip and merge behavior ('only overrides explicitly provided fields'), and the destructive nature with required confirmation. Without annotations, this is good behavioral transparency. Could mention idempotency or auth needs, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Three sentences efficiently deliver purpose, behavior, and workflow. No redundant phrases, well prioritized. Front-loaded with action and scope.

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?

Covers update behavior, confirmation requirement, and post-update step. Missing description of return value (success/failure), but given sibling tools and simple mutating nature, it's acceptable. Minor gap for a tool without output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds contextual categories (toggle monitoring, set monitor IP, etc.) that group parameters meaningfully, and the round-trip behavior clarifies how parameters interact. Adds value beyond schema.

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 tool updates an existing gateway's settings, listing specific togglable features (monitoring, monitor IP, weight/priority, enable/disable). It distinguishes from sibling tools like opnsense_route_gateway_apply (activation) and opnsense_route_gateway_list (listing UUIDs), making intent unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call opnsense_route_gateway_apply after updating, which is crucial for the workflow. Assumes the agent knows to get UUID from opnsense_route_gateway_list (documented in schema). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but provides sufficient guidance for typical use.

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