ncloud_add_route

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

The description only restates the basic action and adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation's non-destructive hint. It does not disclose prerequisites, potential conflicts with existing routes, target validation, or side effects, which are important for a network operation.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, conveying the essential action immediately.

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 is minimal but the schema is detailed, covering all parameters. However, it does not explain the broader context of route tables or the outcome of the operation. Given the moderate complexity of the tool (networking resource), a bit more context would be helpful, but the current description is not wholly inadequate.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., targetTypeCode with allowed values, destinationCidrBlock with format). The description itself adds no parameter details, so it relies on the schema, which is sufficient. 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?

The description "Add a route to a route table" clearly states the action (add) and the resource (route to a route table), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_remove_route or ncloud_list_routes. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage (when you want to add a route) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with related tools such as ncloud_remove_route.

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