hcloud_network_add_route_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the concurrency failure mode ('a change is currently being performed... code conflict'), but says nothing about the asynchronous action this presumably creates, even though the schema exposes a `wait` polling parameter, nor about whether adding a duplicate route is rejected.

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?

Three short sentences, the purpose front-loaded and the conflict caveat last. Minor redundancy: 'Add a route to a Network' and 'Adds a route entry to a Network' restate the same fact, costing a sentence that could have carried behavior detail.

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 mutation with a nested object and no output schema, an agent still needs to know that the call returns/awaits an action (implied only by the undocumented `wait` flag) and what duplicate-route behavior looks like. The conflict disclosure helps, but the async action lifecycle is left entirely to 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 67% and the nested body fields (`destination`, `gateway`) carry detailed constraints, including RFC1918 range rules and the 172.31.1.1 exclusion. The description adds nothing about `id`, `wait`, or how gateway/destination interact, so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameter — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add a route to a Network') and clarifies it appends a route entry rather than modifying the network wholesale, which distinguishes it from siblings like hcloud_network_change_ip_range_action or hcloud_network_add_subnet_action. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. network must exist, route must not overlap), and no pointer to alternatives such as hcloud_network_delete_route_action or the update_network family. The only conditional mentioned is a conflict error, which is a failure mode rather than usage guidance.

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