nat_dmz

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'write' and 'requires confirmation', but does not elaborate on consequences (e.g., whether the change is reversible, whether it disrupts traffic, what the confirmation flow entails). The bare mention of confirmation is a minimal disclosure, but it lacks actionable detail.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient and avoids verbosity, though it sacrifices depth for brevity. No wasted words, but the extreme shortness may be an under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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 has 6 parameters, requires 2, likely involves a confirmation workflow (indicated by fields like confirm_token and confirmation_id), and has no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent would not know how to initiate the confirmation, what parameters are needed for the write vs the confirmation steps, or what response to expect. The description covers almost none of the necessary context.

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% – the description does not reference any of the 6 parameters (lan, host, user_code, acknowledge, confirm_token, confirmation_id). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the schema itself only provides types and constraints. For a tool with required parameters and a likely multi-step confirmation, the lack of any parameter explanation is a serious gap.

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 action ('Set') and the resource ('DMZ host'), and explicitly labels it as a write operation, distinguishing it from read-only siblings like 'show_dmz'. However, it doesn't name the specific sibling tool it differs from, so it's a strong but not fully differentiating description.

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 alternatives. There is a 'show_dmz' sibling for reading, but no explicit contrast or conditions are mentioned. The note 'requires confirmation' hints at a process but doesn't explain the workflow or when to invoke this tool.

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