add_route

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds some behavioral details via parameter notes: check_gateway can be 'ping' or 'arp', and distance 1-255 with lower value meaning higher priority. These influence how the route behaves, but the description does not disclose other consequences like whether an existing route is overwritten.

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 compact: one sentence plus three bullet notes. It is front-loaded with the action and uses a clear 'Notes:' section. Given the tool's 12 parameters, it is under-specified but still concise and free of redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical context for a complex 12-parameter routing operation. It covers only 3 parameters, omits usage alternatives, and does not explain the effect of parameters like pref_src, target_scope, or routing_mark. An agent would struggle to construct a correct call for non-basic routes.

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 has 12 parameters with zero descriptions, so the description is the only source. It explains dst_address CIDR format, check_gateway accepted values, and distance range/priority. However, 9 other parameters (e.g., pref_src, target_scope, scope, routing_mark, vrf_interface) receive no explanation, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 opens with 'Adds a route to the routing table,' clearly stating the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_default_route or add_blackhole_route, which are more specific add operations.

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 given about when to use add_route versus the various route-related siblings. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., gateway required) or exclusions (e.g., for default routes use add_default_route). The only usage context is implicit in the verb 'adds'.

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