set_lan

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 disclose real constraints: the firmware rule that the three IP modes cannot all be off, the condition under which static addresses take effect, and that :LAN:APPLy is needed to activate pending settings. It does not say whether changes are persistent, require a reboot, or need elevated permissions, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the dense multi-line format is justified by 12 undocumented parameters, with each line mapping to a parameter group. The terse pseudo-BNF notation is efficient though slightly cryptic for an agent parsing it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutation tool with no annotations and 12 parameters, the description covers typing, ranges, mode interdependencies, and the activation step adequately; only persistence/permission behavior is missing.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: it specifies dotted-quad ranges for ip/gateway/dns (first octet 0..223, not 127), mask octet ranges, boolean typing for dhcp/auto_ip/manual/mdns, ASCII constraints for hostname/description, the apply flag's effect, and an example of the extra keyword syntax.

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+resource ('Configure the LAN interface') and even cites the manual section, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name its sibling get_lan_config as the read counterpart, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_lan_config or any other sibling, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The 'apply' note is procedural guidance on activation, not guidance on tool selection.

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