Set up a QoS class on a DrayTek Vigor router to prioritize specific network traffic. Requires confirmation before changes are applied.
Configure QoS class (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| param | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose that this is a write operation requiring confirmation. However, it does not explain the confirmation mechanism, side effects, reversibility, or what happens to existing QoS class configuration.
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 with the main purpose front-loaded and the write/confirmation qualifier in parentheses. It is efficient, though very brief.
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?
The tool has four undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set. The description is far too sparse to support correct invocation: it omits parameter meanings, the confirmation flow, required inputs, and expected results.
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 provides no meaning for the four parameters (param, user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id). The description must compensate for the schema gap but does not, leaving parameter semantics almost entirely opaque.
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 action ('Configure') and resource ('QoS class'), and clarifies this is a write operation. This distinguishes it from the many read/status siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from qos_setup or appqos_enable-like tools.
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 instead of alternatives. It only notes 'write — requires confirmation,' providing no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it never references sibling tools such as qos_setup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.