router_set_upnp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two valuable traits: confirm is needed to modify UPnP, and force bypasses a 'Network Guard safety check' — which signals this is a guarded mutation. It stops short of saying what happens if confirm is omitted (error? silent no-op?), whether UPnP enablement is a security exposure, or what a success response looks like.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the action, followed by a tight three-line argument list. Nothing redundant, no filler.

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 needn't be explained, and all params are covered. But for an unannotated mutation tool guarded by a safety check, the description should say what confirm actually guards against and what failure looks like — that gap matters for correct invocation.

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: all three parameters are explained (enabled toggles state, confirm gates the modification, force bypasses the safety check). It omits the defaults for confirm/force and whether confirm=false simply fails, but coverage is otherwise complete.

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 pair and resource: enabling/disabling UPnP dynamic port forwarding on the router. That clearly separates it from the read-only sibling router_get_upnp, though the description never names the sibling explicitly.

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 versus router_get_upnp or the manual port-forwarding tools (router_add_port_forwarding). The only usage-adjacent content is what the confirm and force flags do, which is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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