create_static_route

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds context: the same route_id overwrites (PUT behavior), the return format (created route dict or error dict), and that the route can be advertised upstream with proper configuration. This goes beyond 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?

The description is well-structured with a summary line, usage notes, and parameter list. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose in the parameter section, but not wasteful.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains return values and errors. It also covers the overwrite idempotency nuance and precondition. However, it could mention more about the default target behavior or other edge cases.

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 description carries full burden. It explains each parameter in detail: tier1_id (from list gateways), route_id (alphanumerics/hyphens/underscores), network (CIDR), next_hop (IPv4), gateway_type (tier0/tier1), target (from config). Examples are provided.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create a static route on a Tier-0 or Tier-1 gateway via the Policy API.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with other network objects like segments, transport nodes, or IP pools.

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 guidance on when to use ('for destinations not covered by connected or advertised routes'), prerequisite actions ('Run list_static_routes first to avoid an id clash'), and mentions related tools (list_static_routes, delete_static_route, update_tier1_gateway).

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