create_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 usefully discloses the eval-license route cap, a genuine operational constraint, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the change is immediately active, or what happens on exceeding the limit.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the most consequential constraint. Minimal waste, though the license note is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous about what happens when the limit is hit.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The schema fully documents inputs, and the license cap is a useful addition, but the description leaves behavioral gaps (permissions, activation, error behavior on exceeding the limit) that an agent might need.

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 7 parameters including dst, device, vdom, and the nested 'extra' object are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

'Add a static route' gives a specific verb (create) and resource, unambiguous against siblings like delete_static_route and list_static_routes. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from those siblings, but the verb makes the distinction self-evident.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but the second sentence encodes a real usage constraint: evaluation licenses cap routes at 3, which affects whether the call will succeed. That is implied guidance rather than a full when/when-not statement.

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