delete_static_route

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger is known; what the description should add is what 'two-phase' actually means (e.g., first call previews, second with confirm executes) and that the route is removed from the router config. It delivers neither, and the concurrency role of expected_etag is left entirely unexplained.

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 sentences, front-loaded and free of filler, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient packing. The dangling fragment 'Two-phase.' reads as a note that was never finished.

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, but for a destructive mutation with zero parameter documentation the description is too thin: the meaning of each phase, the effect of expected_etag, and what happens on a mismatched etag are all 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 description coverage is 0%, so the three parameters — confirm, destination, expected_etag — have no documentation anywhere. The description only loosely implies destination ('to a network (CIDR)') and hints at a confirmation step without naming the confirm flag, leaving expected_etag completely opaque.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ('Delete the static route to a network (CIDR)') makes the target unambiguous and easy to distinguish from list_static_routes and add_static_route. The sibling differentiation is implicit in the verb rather than stated, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'Two-phase' gestures at a workflow but never says when to call it, what the first phase does, or when the second phase should follow. Nothing tells the agent whether a dry-run/preview is required before the real deletion.

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