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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool never applies changes automatically and requires an official source, which is critical for a mutation tool. It does not describe potential side effects (e.g., creating a support ticket) but the queuing behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key constraint and behavioral note. Every sentence 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 a proposal tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose, constraints, and outcome (queued, not applied). It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a confirmation ID), which is a minor gap but acceptable given the simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters. The description adds marginal value by echoing the field enum and clarifying that proposedValue must be 'per the cited source' and that sourceUrl must be official. The slug usage hint is useful but not essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Propose a fix to a router model's default gateway IP, username, password, credential type, or reset steps on ssid.ai.' It enumerates the exact fields the tool can correct, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_router_defaults (read-only) and check_router_compliance (validation).

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 states the key usage constraint: 'Requires an official manufacturer source URL (never an aggregator/forum)' and notes the tool queues for verification rather than applying changes. It also gives a slug format hint. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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