router_static_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update' which implies mutation but fails to detail side effects, authorization needs, or whether the operation is atomic. No additional behavioral context is given.

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 sentence, making it concise, but it does not earn its place by providing value beyond the tool name. It is not overly verbose, but it could be restructured to include more context without losing conciseness.

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 the tool has 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits any mention of the output format, error conditions, or the fact that only the specified parameters are updated. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden slightly, but the description still lacks essential context for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the tool's name. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Update' and the resource 'existing static route', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like router_static_create, router_static_delete, and router_static_list by specifying that it updates an existing route.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other static route tools or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the requirement that the route must already exist via seq_num, nor does it indicate scenarios where update is appropriate.

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