put_upnpav_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update' and mentions an error code 'internal_error', but does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or what happens if enabled is toggled. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 very short (one sentence plus error code), with no wasted words. It is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating description from error details.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no required fields, output schema exists), the description should still cover basic behavioral aspects and usage context. It lacks information about return values (output schema not described) and when to use this tool, making it incomplete.

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%, and the schema parameter description ('is the UPnP AV service enabled') is clear. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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 'Update the UPnPAVConfig' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (UPnPAVConfig). It is distinct from siblings like get_upnpav_config (read) and put_upnpigd_config (different service). However, it could be more specific about what is updated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that get_upnpav_config should be used to retrieve current settings before updating, or compare with put_upnpigd_config.

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