update_static_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that configuration changes are applied and claims to return 'Update status' and 'Configuration changes applied,' but omits critical semantics: whether route_data replaces or merges with the existing route, permission requirements, error behavior, and whether changes are idempotent or reversible.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by parameters and returns in a scannable structure. The second sentence ('This tool modifies... allowing changes to destination, gateway, or other settings') is somewhat redundant with the first but earns partial credit by giving concrete examples of updatable fields.

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 what, the parameters, and return values (valuable since no output schema exists), and handles a nested-object mutation reasonably. However, it leaves out merge-vs-replace semantics for route_data and any safety or permission context, which are important for a configuration-changing tool with no annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description largely repeats schema text but does add one useful clarification: vdom is optional and 'uses device default,' which is not spelled out in the schema. It adds little else beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Update an existing static route on a FortiGate device') and clarifies that it modifies an existing route rather than creating one. However, it never names or contrasts with siblings such as create_static_route, delete_static_route, or get_static_route_detail, leaving differentiation implicit.

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 phrase 'existing static route' implies the route must already exist, which is a useful precondition. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_static_route or get_static_route_detail, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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