delete_static_route

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

Despite the destructiveHint annotation already signaling danger, the description adds crucial context: irreversibility, immediate traffic fallback/dropping, and the exact return type (confirmation string or 'Error: ...' string, not a dict). This goes well beyond annotation signals and covers both success and failure behavior.

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?

The description is efficiently front-loaded with the core action, followed by critical cautions and parameter docs. No sentence is wasted; even the return-type note earns its place. The bulleted Args block is structurally clean and scannable.

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?

Given this is a destructive, irreversible write operation with four parameters and an output contract, the description covers prerequisites (listing routes), confirmation steps, parameter constraints, and return format. It is fully self-contained and leaves no obvious gaps.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), but the Args section fully explains each of the four parameters, including default values and provenance (e.g., tier1_id from list_tier0_gateways/list_tier1_gateways, route_id from list_static_routes). This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a static route from a Tier-0 or Tier-1 gateway.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_static_route and list_static_routes, and the scope (Tier-0/Tier-1) is explicit.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run list_static_routes on the same tier1_id first to confirm... and confirm with the user before deleting.' It also warns about the need to match gateway_type, giving clear prerequisites and cautions not found in sibling descriptions.

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