Activate DoS defense on your Vigor router by submitting confirmation credentials, protecting against denial-of-service attacks.
Activate DoS defense system (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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, which is useful, but it does not explain what the confirmation flow entails, what side effects activation has on traffic, whether it is reversible, or what happens if confirmation fails. The parenthetical is a start but leaves critical behavioral context unstated.
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 short sentence that front-loads the action and the key write/confirmation caveat. It is concise and scannable, though it could earn a 5 by adding a brief usage pointer without becoming verbose.
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 state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine how to obtain a confirmation token, what the confirmation_id refers to, or what success/failure looks like. The sibling list shows many related DoS tools, but the description does not connect to them.
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 there are 3 parameters (user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id) with no descriptions. The tool description does not explain the role of any parameter, leaving the agent to guess which values are needed and how they relate to the confirmation requirement. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
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 ('Activate') and resource ('DoS defense system'), and the parenthetical '(write — requires confirmation)' signals that this is a state-changing action. It is distinguishable from the sibling dos_deactivate, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dos_deactivate, dos_view, or dos_blacklist_show. The '(write — requires confirmation)' hint implies a confirmation flow but does not explain prerequisites, when activation is appropriate, or what conditions warrant deactivation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.