vrfsUpdateFabricStaticRoute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention what happens to existing fields not specified, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters and complex nested objects, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 extremely concise with just two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, though some might argue it's too brief given the tool's complexity. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second provides basic usage syntax.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, doesn't indicate which fields are mutable vs read-only (though the schema does), and provides no guidance on partial updates or error conditions. For a mutation tool of this complexity, the description should do more to complement the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema provides comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'resource ID and the fields to update' but doesn't clarify which parameters are identifiers vs updatable fields, or provide any additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a specific static route'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'vrfsUpdateFabricVrf' or 'vrfsAddFabricStaticRoutes' beyond the basic verb+resource combination.

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 minimal usage guidance with 'To use this tool, pass the resource ID and the fields to update as arguments' - this is basic syntax instruction rather than contextual guidance. There's no indication of when to use this vs alternatives like 'vrfsAddFabricStaticRoutes' or 'vrfsDeleteFabricStaticRoute', nor any prerequisites or constraints beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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