setGatewayWanConnect

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no further behavioral context beyond the literal connect/disconnect effect. It does not mention potential impact such as disconnecting internet access, reversibility, or state changes on the gateway.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff. The key verb and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and only 25% parameter documentation, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify how to obtain gatewayMac, portId, or siteId, nor what response or side effects to expect.

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 only 25% (only action is documented). The description's phrase 'gateway WAN port' hints that gatewayMac and portId refer to a gateway and its WAN port, but siteId remains unexplained and no parameter details are added.

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 (connect/disconnect) and a specific resource (gateway WAN port). It clearly identifies the operation and is distinct from sibling tools like setSwitchPortStatus, which targets switch ports.

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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The action enum implies connect/disconnect scenarios, but the description does not explain when to choose this over related port-management tools.

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