Add Connection Limit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the rule takes effect immediately, how it interacts with conflicting existing limits, whether auth/admin rights are required, or that the operation is a persistent mutation. 'Add' implies creation but nothing else is stated.

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 single six-word phrase is technically brief, but its brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing useful is front-loaded because nothing beyond the title is present.

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 6-parameter mutation with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is wholly inadequate. The only mitigating factor, that a return value needn't be explained because an output schema exists, does not compensate for the missing purpose, usage, and parameter information.

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 6 parameters (mac, ip_addr, time_range, max_connections, enabled, comment), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Critical details such as whether mac or ip_addr is the targeting key, the time_range format, and units/semantics of max_connections are entirely undocumented.

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 '添加连接数限制' is a direct restatement of the tool title 'Add Connection Limit' and adds nothing beyond the name. It does not distinguish this tool from its obvious siblings list_connection_limits and delete_connection_limit, nor does it describe the object being limited (per-MAC, per-IP, global).

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling list_connection_limits or delete_connection_limit. The agent gets no signal about when a limit versus another QoS/rate-limit tool (e.g. add_ip_speed_limit, add_mac_speed_limit) is appropriate.

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