create_static_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the mutation (routing entries, optional vdom fallback) and a coarse return summary, but says nothing about permissions, duplicate-route handling, validation failures, or whether the change is immediate/committed. For a config-writing tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary, then Parameters, nested Route data, and Returns in labeled blocks. Sentences are short and each block maps to something an agent needs; the definitional sentence about forwarding traffic is the only mild filler.

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?

Covers inputs, nested route fields and a rough return shape, which is reasonable for a 3-param tool with no output schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks failure-mode and side-effect information (does a duplicate destination error or overwrite?) that matters for a routing-mutation call.

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 nominally 100%, but the key parameter route_data is an untyped nested object (additionalProperties: true) with no field documentation in the schema. The description compensates by enumerating dst, gateway, device, distance and comment, which is genuinely necessary information. It does not state which of those nested fields are mandatory, capping it below 5.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a new static route on a FortiGate device') plus one sentence of semantic context about what a static route does. It is distinguishable from list_static_routes / update_static_route / delete_static_route by verb, but the description never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'new' — an agent can infer this is for adding routes that do not yet exist, and must look elsewhere for modification or removal. No exclusions (e.g. 'use update_static_route for existing routes'), no prerequisites, no note about VDOM selection rules beyond 'uses device default'.

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