enable_route

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares this is a WRITE tool, states the MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true gate, and documents the two-phase confirm=False preview / confirm=True apply flow plus error behavior. That is exactly the safety context an agent needs before mutating a route.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose and resolution logic, then the write-guard semantics. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the failover-shape example is mildly illustrative rather than essential.

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?

For a 5-parameter write tool with an output schema available, the description covers resolution logic, ambiguity handling, the write gate, and the confirm workflow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and return values are handled by the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the load-bearing parameters: dst_address is the resolver, gateway/comment narrow an ambiguous match, and confirm drives the preview-vs-apply behavior. Only device_name is left implicit, which keeps it from a top score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Enable a route'), names the underlying operation, and identifies the key selector (dst_address) that distinguishes it from disable_route/add_route/remove_route/set_route_distance. An agent can pick it out of the sibling list without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the resolution/narrowing workflow (dst_address primary, gateway/comment to disambiguate) and what happens on no-match or ambiguity, which is real routing guidance. It does not explicitly name the sibling to use instead for the opposite operation (disable_route), 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.