nat_set_upnp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing. It does not disclose whether the setting persists across reboots, whether disabling UPnP tears down existing mappings, or what permissions are needed for a router configuration change.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a config-mutating tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It omits the state-change consequences an agent needs before toggling a router's UPnP setting.

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% for the single 'enabled' boolean, but the description's 'active/désactive' phrasing maps clearly onto true/false, partially compensating. It adds direction semantics but no defaults or format detail beyond that.

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 pair and resource: enable/disable UPnP. An agent can distinguish it from nat_get_upnp by the mutating verb, but the description itself never names the read counterpart, so sibling differentiation relies on the tool name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of checking current state first via nat_get_upnp, and no note on prerequisites or side effects. The agent must infer that this is the write counterpart to the getter.

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