add_static_route

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description's only added behavioral signal is the cryptic "Two-phase", which is never unpacked into a preview-then-confirm sequence or an explanation of what confirm=true does. Nothing is said about immediate effect on routing, rollback, or validation.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the format hint sits right next to the resource it describes. The brevity crosses into under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally it is clean.

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 mutation with 0% schema coverage, a confirm gate, and etag-based concurrency, this description is far too thin; an output schema exists so return values needn't be covered, but the two-phase contract and parameter meanings should be. An agent could not reliably invoke this correctly on the description alone.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only clarifies the destination format (CIDR with an example); gateway, metric, confirm, and expected_etag receive no explanation at all, and the etag/optimistic-concurrency semantics are never surfaced.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Route a network ... via a LAN gateway") and uses a concrete CIDR example, which clearly separates it from list_static_routes and delete_static_route. The trailing "Two-phase" is unexplained and slightly muddies an otherwise crisp statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over list_static_routes or delete_static_route, and no mention of prerequisites such as fetching an expected_etag first. The "two-phase" phrase implies a workflow but never states what the phases are or what the caller must do between them.

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