fritz_set_wan_access

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the effect (cutting/restoring a device's WAN access) but omits prerequisites such as whether the device must already be known to the router or whether parental-control/WAN rules must be enabled, and it never states what the call returns or what happens on an unknown address.

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 tightly-written sentence with the action and the selector front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is redundant.

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 state-changing, two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too thin. An agent still lacks the prerequisite knowledge (device must be resolvable, parental control enabled) and any indication of success/failure reporting.

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% with only bare titles, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning: the boolean is the block/restore switch and the identifier is specifically an IPv4 address rather than a hostname or MAC — but it says nothing about accepted format details, validation, or error behavior for malformed addresses.

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 action (block or restore) on a specific resource (one device's internet access) and identifies the key (IPv4 address). This clearly separates it from siblings such as fritz_set_guest_wifi or fritz_reboot, but it does not explicitly reference any sibling or contrast with them.

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?

'Block or restore' implies the `blocked` flag toggles direction, so the calling condition is inferable. However, there is no guidance on how to obtain the IPv4 address (e.g., via fritz_list_devices) or on when this is preferable to network-level alternatives like fritz_set_guest_wifi.

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