set_dmz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'configure DMZ host' and gives no information about side effects (e.g., exposing an internal IP to the WAN), requirements, or whether the operation is a toggle or full update. This is a potentially destructive network change with zero 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 description is a single brief sentence, which is concise in length but severely under-specified. It lacks any structure that would help the agent parse key information, and it simply restates the tool name in Chinese rather than providing a useful summary.

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?

Given that this tool modifies network configuration, has three undocumented params, and relies entirely on the description for context, a one-line restatement of the name is completely inadequate. It fails to provide the information needed to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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?

The schema has three parameters (enabled, interface, internal_ip) with no descriptions and 0% schema coverage. The description does not compensate by explaining any of these parameters, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of what values are expected.

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 '配置 DMZ 主机' (Configure DMZ host) states a verb and resource, but it is essentially a literal restatement of the tool name 'set_dmz'. It does not clarify what specific aspects of the DMZ host are configured (e.g., enable/disable, which interface, which IP), nor does it differentiate from other configuration tools beyond the resource name.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as checking the current config via get_dmz_config, nor does it explain under what conditions a user might need to set a DMZ host.

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