delete_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, and it discloses only that configuration is mutated. It says nothing about whether deletion is irreversible, what happens if the route_id does not exist, required permissions, or whether the change takes effect immediately in the routing table. Only the "Returns: Deletion status confirmation" line adds any 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying sentence and compact parameter/return lists. The parameter list largely duplicates the schema, which is mild waste, but the description stays short and scannable.

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?

For a three-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic contract and states the return value. It stops short of the details an agent most needs before a delete: irreversibility, permission requirements, and failure behavior when the route does not exist.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds one piece of meaning beyond the schema by noting that vdom is optional and falls back to the device default, but device_id and route_id are merely restated.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (static route) scoped to a FortiGate device, so the agent knows exactly what is being removed. It does not differentiate from siblings such as update_static_route or get_static_route_detail, but the verb/resource pairing is unambiguous on its own.

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?

"Removes an existing static route" implies the precondition that the route must already exist, which is the only usage signal. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this versus update_static_route, no prerequisite checks (e.g. confirm via get_static_route_detail first), and no stated exclusions or warnings about removing an in-use route.

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