router_set_data_limit

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

With no annotations, the description carries substantial behavioral explanation: it notes that confirm is required to apply limits, enable enforces quota, and force bypasses a Network Guard safety check. It still does not describe reversibility, required permissions, or broader side effects, but it discloses the key safety-related behavior for this mutation.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a compact Args block that earns its place by documenting all six otherwise-undocumented parameters. There is no redundant or wasted prose.

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?

The tool has six parameters and no annotations, so parameter and safety documentation are critical; the description covers both well. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, but the description still lacks explicit routing to getter/alternative tools and broader side-effect details.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every parameter is documented with meaning and examples or ranges, including limit_mb in MB, payment_day 1-31, warning_percent threshold, enable semantics, confirm requirement, and force bypass behavior.

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 and resource: configuring monthly cellular data quota, billing-day reset, and alert threshold. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling getter by using the configuration/action framing, though it does not explicitly name router_get_data_limit as the read-only alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the action-oriented purpose and the presence of confirm/force flags, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus router_get_data_limit or other router configuration tools. There are no exclusions or prerequisites beyond parameter-level notes.

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