disable_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the write guard, the preview/apply confirm flow, the specific risk of disabling the default route, and the returned warning field to check before confirming. It also describes error behavior on no match or ambiguity, leaving little behavioral uncertainty.

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 well front-loaded with purpose, then risk, then write-guard mechanics. Every sentence earns its place: resolution logic, error behavior, destructive warning, and confirm flow. It is appropriately sized for a guarded write operation with real risk.

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's complexity, the low schema description coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, resolution, error cases, destructive risk, the warning field, and the confirm/guard flow. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains dst_address as the resolution key, gateway and comment as narrowing filters for ambiguous matches, and confirm as the preview/apply switch. It does not explain device_name, though that parameter is largely self-evident from context.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Disable a route') and even gives the underlying command ('/ip/route set disabled=yes'). It explains the resolution key (dst_address) and narrowing logic (gateway/comment), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling route operations like enable_route, add_route, or remove_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?

It gives clear procedural guidance: call with confirm=False for a preview, then confirm=True to apply, and notes the write guard requiring MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true. It also describes error conditions when nothing matches or the match is ambiguous. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., enable_route) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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