Set the APP enforcement profile on a DrayTek Vigor router, requiring confirmation for the write operation.
Set APP enforcement profile (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| param | Yes | ||
| 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, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, which is meaningful. However, it does not explain what 'requires confirmation' entails, what side effects may occur, or whether additional confirmation steps are needed.
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 extremely concise with no filler, front-loading the verb and object. While brevity is a strength, it omits information that could be useful, so it is efficient but not fully structured.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema parameter descriptions, yet the description only states the high-level purpose. It does not cover the confirmation flow, required parameter semantics, or expected return behavior, leaving the agent with significant gaps.
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 any of the four parameters, including the required 'param'. The agent is left without guidance on what values to pass for param, user_code, confirm_token, or confirmation_id.
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 uses a specific verb 'Set' with a clear resource 'APP enforcement profile', and explicitly notes it is a write operation. This differentiates it from the sibling read tool csm_appe_show without requiring the schema.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as csm_appe_show or other configuration tools. The phrase 'write — requires confirmation' implies a configuration action but does not state conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.