remove_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the write-guard env flag, the dry-run preview semantics, the non-blocking `warning` field on default-route removal, and the hard refusal on dynamic routes with the reason (network severance). These are precisely the behavioral traits an agent needs to avoid a destructive mistake.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and resolution logic, then uses labeled SAFETY and WRITE sections, so a reader can locate the destructive-operation constraints immediately. The length is justified by the guarded-write complexity and no sentence is filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, an output schema (so return values need not be explained), and a guarded write flow, the description covers the safety and confirm semantics thoroughly. The only gap is the unexplained `device_name` parameter, which is a minor omission.

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 explains `dst_address` (resolution key), `gateway` (narrowing only when multiple routes share a dst_address), and `confirm` (preview vs apply) clearly. However, `device_name` is never mentioned, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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 ('Remove a static route'), gives the resolution key (`dst_address`) and the narrower (`gateway`), and even cites the underlying RouterOS command. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like add_route, enable_route, disable_route and remove_ipv6_route without opening any 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?

Explicitly states when it refuses (dynamic/connected/DHCP/OSPF/BGP routes), when it is blocked entirely (no MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE), and the two-step workflow (confirm=False preview then confirm=True apply). Error-on-no-match and error-on-ambiguity conditions are also spelled out, leaving little to inference.

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