Enable a switch feature on a DrayTek Vigor router via CLI; requires confirmation before the write is applied.
Enable switch feature (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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does state 'write' and 'requires confirmation', which are useful behavioral signals, but it does not explain what side effects occur, whether the operation is reversible, or what the confirmation flow entails.
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 the core action ('Enable switch feature') front-loaded and the key behavioral note parenthesized. It is concise and readable, though slightly too terse to provide meaningful guidance.
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?
This is a mutation-gated tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions for parameters. The description does not explain the 'param' semantics, the confirmation mechanism, or the precise effect, so it is not sufficient for correct selection and invocation.
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 clarify the roles of param, user_code, confirm_token, or confirmation_id. The mention of confirmation is a useful hint, but an agent still cannot determine how to populate the required fields or what confirmation data to supply.
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 uses a specific verb ('Enable') and a concrete resource ('switch feature'), and clearly differentiates from the sibling switch_off (inverse), switch_status, switch_list, and switch_query. It makes the tool's operational role obvious.
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 the use case by saying 'Enable switch feature', but it does not explicitly describe when to use this tool over switch_off or the status/query variants. The 'requires confirmation' note signals a necessary condition, but no when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.