ip_addr

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that this is a write operation and requires confirmation, which is useful since no annotations are provided. However, it omits critical behavioral details: what happens without confirmation, whether changes are reversible, what the confirmation mechanism is, and potential side effects on network connectivity. The hint is present but underdeveloped.

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 short, which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and no other documentation. It front-loads the write/confirmation aspect, but the lack of any parameter or usage detail makes it insufficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to invoke it correctly, what the confirmation flow looks like, or what the expected result is. Essential operational details are entirely absent.

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 mention any of the six parameters. It does not clarify that 'lan' and 'ip' are required, nor what 'user_code', 'acknowledge', 'confirm_token', or 'confirmation_id' mean. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema, which itself is sparse for these parameters.

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 clear verb and resource ('Set LAN IP'), which identifies the primary action. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like ip6_addr or linux_setlinuxip, but the 'LAN IP' wording is specific enough to suggest a network interface configuration. A more precise description could mention that it configures the device's own LAN interface.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like ip6_addr (IPv6 address) or linux_setlinuxip (Linux IP) are not referenced, and no context is given for when setting a LAN IP is appropriate. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.