fritz_set_upnp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool and does not deliver: it says nothing about required permissions, whether the change persists or is reversible, or when it takes effect. The trailing sentence 'The media server stays off' is cryptic and does not clearly function as a side-effect disclosure.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded. The second sentence is short but ambiguous enough that it adds confusion rather than value, which is a structural weakness rather than a length problem.

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 one-parameter toggle with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic action but omits reversibility, scope (router-wide vs per-device), and the meaning of the media-server remark. Adequate minimum-viable coverage, not complete.

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 0%, but there is only one boolean parameter and the description's 'enable or disable' phrasing directly maps to it, so meaning is effectively conveyed. Only minor gap is absence of any note about the default state or effect of each value.

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 names a specific verb pair and resource ('Enable or disable UPnP port forwarding'), so an agent knows exactly what capability it toggles. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling fritz_port_forwards (which lists forwards), leaving a small ambiguity about which tool owns port-forward state.

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 guidance on when to call this versus fritz_port_forwards, no preconditions, and no warning that toggling UPnP has security implications. Usage is only implied by the verb 'enable or disable'.

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