Disable AP management on a DrayTek Vigor router to halt wireless configuration changes. Requires a confirmation token to execute the write.
Disable AP management (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_code | No | ||
| confirm_token | No | ||
| confirmation_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by stating that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, but it doesn't explain the confirmation flow, side effects, reversibility, or failure behavior. The disclosed traits are correct and useful, but thin.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action ('Disable AP management') comes first, followed by the essential 'write — requires confirmation' qualifier. Every word earns its place.
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 a write tool with three undocumented parameters DN and no output schema, this one-line description is insufficient. It leaves the agent guessing about how to initiate confirmation, what to supply for each field, and what indicates success. The description is far too sparse for reliable autonomous 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%, and the description does not explain user_code, confirm_token, or confirmation_id. The phrase 'requires confirmation' weakly hints that confirm_token and confirmation_id are involved, but an agent still has no idea how to obtain or format these values. The description fails to compensate for schema gaps.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Disable AP management') and the 'write' qualifier explicitly marks it as a mutation, clearly distinguishing it from read-only AP tools like apm_show and apm_query. The sibling apm_enable provides the direct contrast, making the tool's role unambiguous.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apm_enable or apm_show. The parenthetical 'requires confirmation' is a behavioral warning, not a usage condition, so an agent gets no context about prerequisites, sequencing, or situations that call for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.