set_route_distance

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 richly: it discloses the write-guard requirement, the two-phase preview/apply contract, and the failure semantics (errors without changing anything if no route matches, AmbiguousResourceError if multiple match, never guesses). It also explains the stable-key resolution choice and why dynamic ids are avoided.

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-loaded with the core action and the meaning of `distance`, then layered with resolution rules, guard behavior, and workflow. Each paragraph earns its place, though the multi-paragraph format is denser than strictly necessary for a single-field update.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given a 5-param mutation with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the action, the safety guard, the preview/apply contract, the identity resolution strategy, and the error modes — nothing essential is missing.

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 key parameters: `distance` (failover priority, lower wins), `confirm` (default False = preview, True = apply), and the `dst_address`/`gateway` pair as the resolution key. `device_name` is left implicit, which is the only gap.

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 precise verb+resource ('Adjust an existing route's distance') and even names the underlying RouterOS command. It also defines the domain meaning of `distance` (failover priority, lower wins), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like add_route, remove_route, enable_route, and disable_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?

Gives clear operational context: it is a guarded WRITE tool requiring MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true, with a confirm=False preview step followed by confirm=True apply. It points to the README for the full flow. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative to use instead, so it falls just short of a 5.

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