enable_route

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no further behavioral context. There is no mention of side effects, prerequisites, or what 'enabled' means in the MikroTik context.

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 plus a focused note. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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, but the description is sparse. It lacks context about the operational effect of enabling a route, prerequisites, or how it relates to list_routes and disable_route. The route_id note and presence of an output schema provide some grounding, but the description could do more.

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 note about route_id ('*N' or 'N' from list output e.g. '*3') adds valuable format and sourcing information beyond the schema's bare 'Route Id'. The device parameter remains unexplained, and with schema description coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates for missing parameter semantics.

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 'Enables a route' clearly identifies the action and target resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like disable_route or enable_interface. However, it adds little beyond the tool name itself, so it does not earn a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as disable_route or update_route. The only extra note explains route_id format, which pertains to parameter handling rather than tool selection.

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