Propose a router default-login correction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that submissions are 'Queued for verification — never applied automatically' (not an immediate mutation), requires an official manufacturer source URL, and states the auth mechanism (SSID_API_KEY or Bearer token) plus its cost. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a write tool.

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?

Front-loads the action and then layers constraints in order of importance (source requirement, queue behavior, slug source, auth/cost). Dense but every sentence adds operational value; slightly packed for a single paragraph.

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 behavior, auth, cost, and source requirements for a 4-required-param submission tool with no annotations or output schema. It stops short of describing what the submission returns (e.g., a submission id) or post-verification handling, which would complete the picture.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it lists the correctable fields, explains where the slug comes from (ssid.ai/routers/<slug>), and hardens the sourceUrl parameter with an official-source constraint beyond the schema's format:uri.

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?

States a specific verb (propose a fix / submit a correction) and the exact resource fields it targets: gateway IP, username, password, credential type, and reset steps. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the three read siblings by noting this is the paid write path while 'the three read tools stay free'.

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?

Gives clear conditions for use (you have a correction backed by a manufacturer source) and an explicit exclusion ('never an aggregator/forum'). It references the read tools only in the context of pricing rather than naming which sibling to use for reading, so the alternative routing is implied rather than explicit.

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