Add Route to Network

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly (modifying) and non-destructive. The description confirms the adding behavior but adds no extra transparency about side effects, error conditions, or the requirement for the network to exist. It is adequate given the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Add a route to an existing network.' No wasted words; it gets straight to the action.

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 no output schema, the description does not hint at return values or side effects. It also does not mention that the network must exist or what happens if the route conflicts. It is minimally complete for a simple add operation but could be improved.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions like 'Destination network of the route' and 'Gateway for the route'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond these, and the schema descriptions themselves are somewhat vague (e.g., lacking format constraints). Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'route', and specifies the context 'to an existing network'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_route' or 'add_subnet', but could be more explicit that the network is identified by the 'id' parameter.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as checking network existence or comparing with 'add_subnet' or 'delete_route'. The description does not mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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