create_static_route

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, etc.), description discloses PUT semantics (overwrite on re-run), return format (dict or error), and audit logging. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with [WRITE] tag, purpose, usage, notes, and Args list. Front-loaded but slightly verbose; could be tighter without losing meaning.

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?

Covers all parameters, output/error format, audit log, and gateway advertising condition. Lacks full return structure but acceptable given no output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage; description compensates fully by explaining each parameter, including constraints (route_id format, network CIDR, next_hop IPv4, gateway_type default).

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?

Description clearly states it creates a static route on a Tier-0 or Tier-1 gateway via the Policy API, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_nat_rule or create_segment.

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?

Explicitly says use for destinations not covered by connected/advertised routes and notes overwrite semantics. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but provides sufficient context.

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