Disable the active DoS defense system on a DrayTek Vigor 3912S router. Use this when network protection needs to be turned off, with a two-step confirmation gate to prevent accidental changes.
Deactivate DoS defense system (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_code | No | ||
| acknowledge | 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 of behavioral disclosure. It does state that this is a write operation and that confirmation is required, which are important traits. However, it does not explain the consequences of deactivation, what the confirmation flow entails, or any side effects, leaving significant ambiguity.
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, compact sentence with no filler words. The key facts — the action, the resource, the write nature, and the confirmation requirement — are front-loaded and easily parsed, though the brevity leaves room for more useful detail.
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 write tool requiring confirmation and having four undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse. It lacks an explanation of the confirmation workflow, how to obtain confirmation_id, what acknowledge does, and what the expected output or side effects are. This is inadequate given the tool's complexity.
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% for the four parameters, and the description does not clarify the roles of user_code, acknowledge, confirm_token, or confirmation_id. The mention of 'requires confirmation' hints at some parameters but does not map to them or explain their meaning, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema details.
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 ('Deactivate') and a clear resource ('DoS defense system'), making the tool's core function immediately understandable. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling dos_activate by using the opposite verb, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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 like dos_activate or dos_view. The only usage hint is that it is a write operation requiring confirmation, but there is no explanation of prerequisites or when deactivation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.