ncloud_remove_route

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with a '⚠️ Destructive' warning. It also adds the confirmation gate ('Set confirm=true to execute'), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. This discloses that the destructive operation will not execute unless confirmed, giving the agent a clear safety mechanism.

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 only two sentences, with the critical warning placed first and the operational instruction second. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple destructive operation, annotations cover safety, and schema covers all parameters, the description is complete enough. It adds the key confirmation requirement. Since there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. A minor gap is the lack of prerequisites (e.g., valid route table), but that is implied by the parameter descriptions.

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%: all six parameters (routeTableNo, vpcNo, destinationCidrBlock, targetTypeCode, targetNo, confirm) have descriptive text. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does reiterate the 'confirm' behavior but that is already in the schema.

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 a specific action: 'Remove a route from a route table.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_add_route (adding) and ncloud_remove_route_table_subnet (removing a subnet, not a route). The verb 'remove' plus resource 'route' is 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 (you use this when you need to delete a route) and provides a critical instruction ('Set confirm=true to execute'), but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like ncloud_remove_route_table_subnet or ncloud_add_route. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, so guidance is only implied.

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