add_static_route

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

Despite the annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the description adds materially useful behavior beyond them: the change is not immediately active but staged in candidate config until a commit is issued. This affects what the agent should expect after invocation and what next step is required. The '[MODIFIES CONFIG]' marker aligns with, rather than contradicts, the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler. The behavioral tag is front-loaded, followed immediately by the verb+resource, then the critical staging note. Every element earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, the target resource, and the single most important behavioral caveat (candidate config staging). Parameter details are fully carried by the schema, and the safety profile is carried by the annotations. Success/return behavior is not described, but with no output schema that gap is acceptable.

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 100%, so all 8 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but its staging caveat gives the parameters a meaningful temporal context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a static route in a virtual router.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_static_route and get_static_routes based on the action word alone. The '[MODIFIES CONFIG]' prefix adds an operational category that reinforces what the tool does.

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?

The description provides clear workflow context: 'Staged in candidate config — requires commit to activate.' This tells the agent this is a multi-step operation and that a follow-up commit call is needed, which is genuine usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the staging workflow implication is strong enough for an agent to sequence correctly.

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