Change the DHCP lease time on a Vigor 3912S router by specifying LAN index and seconds. Requires confirmation to apply the update.
Set DHCP lease time (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lan | Yes | ||
| seconds | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful traits beyond the name by stating that this is a write operation and that it requires confirmation. However, it does not explain what the confirmation flow involves or what side effects, if any, occur before confirmation.
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, front-loads the core purpose, and adds a critical parenthetical warning about confirmation. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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 mutating operation with five parameters, no output schema, and a stated confirmation requirement, the description is too thin. It does not describe how confirmation works, which parameters are needed for confirmation, or what the agent should expect after the call.
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% and none of the five parameters are described. The description only clarifies that 'seconds' relates to lease time; it does not explain the meaning of 'lan', 'user_code', 'confirm_token', or 'confirmation_id'. With such low coverage, the description should have compensated but does not.
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 the specific verb 'Set' with a clear resource, 'DHCP lease time', and is clearly distinct from sibling DHCP tools like dhcp_on, dhcp_off, dhcp_startip, dhcp_gateway, dhcp_dns1, and dhcp_dns2. An agent can understand what this tool does without needing to inspect 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative DHCP-related tools, and it gives no explicit context for deciding between this and sibling write operations. The only usage hint is the implicit meaning from the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.