msubnet_switch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, which is useful. However, it does not explain why confirmation is required, any irreversible effects, permissions needed, or what happens after the switch is toggled.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The essential purpose (enable/disable multi-subnet) comes first, and the operational qualifier (write, requires confirmation) is added compactly. Every word earns its place.

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?

There are no annotations, no output schema, and a five-parameter input schema with no parameter descriptions. The tool involves a confirmation workflow, but the description never explains how to obtain or use confirm_token/confirmation_id, the role of user_code/acknowledge, or what a successful call returns. This is a substantial completeness gap for a write operation.

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%, so the description must compensate for documenting the five parameters, and it does not. The only semantic mapping is 'enable/disable' corresponding to the onoff enum; user_code, acknowledge, confirm_token, and confirmation_id are left completely unexplained. The parameter names are weakly self-explanatory, preventing a score of 1.

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 clearly states the verb (enable/disable), the resource (multi-subnet), and the operation type (write), making it immediately distinguishable from read-only siblings like msubnet_status. The parenthetical also adds a key operational qualifier. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 implies this is a write operation requiring confirmation, which hints at usage context, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as msubnet_status or switch_on/switch_off. There are no exclusions or 'use instead' statements, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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