update_route

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining route_id format, dst_address CIDR, check_gateway allowed values, distance range, and that passing "" clears specific fields. Annotations already mark it as idempotent and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. It doesn't disclose side effects, but the added parameter behaviors are useful.

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 extremely concise: a single opening sentence followed by bulleted parameter notes. Every line earns its place, and the structured format makes it easy to scan. There is no wasted text.

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 description covers the required parameter and several key update fields, and the output schema plus annotations provide additional context. However, for a tool with 13 parameters, several remain undocumented, so the agent may not know how to set target_scope, comment, or other options. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining route_id, dst_address, check_gateway, distance, and three clearable fields (routing_mark, vrf_interface, pref_src). However, it leaves scope, device, comment, gateway, disabled, and target_scope unexplained, covering roughly half of the 13 parameters. This partial coverage is a clear gap.

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 'Updates a route' with a specific verb and resource, and the name 'update_route' distinguishes it from siblings like add_route, remove_route, and get_route. It doesn't explicitly enumerate all updatable fields, but the notes provide additional context, making the purpose clear.

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 use for modifying an existing route but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't mention that add_route should be used for creation or remove_route for deletion, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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