add_route

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: false and openWorldHint: false, but there is no readOnlyHint, so the description must disclose the mutating nature and any side effects. It only states 'Adds a route' without mentioning required permissions, reversibility, or potential impact on existing routes. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 concise paragraph with a clean list of parameter notes. There is no fluff, and the most critical parameter details are front-loaded. It could be slightly better structured but is efficient.

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?

With 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate heavily. It covers only a third of the parameters and provides no context on return values, prerequisites (e.g., routing table existence), or side effects. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the description alone is insufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly in all cases.

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 0%, so the description is the only source for parameter meaning. It provides useful notes for dst_address, routing_table, check_gateway, and distance, but ignores the other 8 parameters (scope, device, comment, gateway, disabled, pref_src, target_scope, vrf_interface). While some are self-explanatory from names, the lack of coverage for required parameters like gateway is a miss.

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 action ('Adds a route to the routing table') with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_default_route or add_blackhole_route, but the name and description imply a general route addition, which is understandable without explicit exclusions.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_default_route or add_blackhole_route. It does not mention any prerequisites or conditions that would select this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and parameter notes alone.

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