Change alert configuration on a DrayTek Vigor 3912S router. Requires confirmation to complete the write operation.
Switch alert configuration (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 full responsibility. It does disclose that it is a write operation and requires confirmation, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explain what the confirmation process entails, what side effects occur, whether changes are reversible, or what happens if confirmation is not provided. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating operation.
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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not front-load critical information about parameters or the confirmation workflow. The phrase 'write — requires confirmation' is useful but incomplete. It lacks structure and fails to convey necessary details.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without knowing what 'param' should be, how to obtain a confirmation token, or what the expected response is. The description does not meet the minimum requirements for safe and correct usage.
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 the lack of parameter documentation. It does not mention 'param', 'user_code', 'confirm_token', or 'confirmation_id' at all. An agent has no idea what values to provide or their purpose. This is a critical 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 states a verb ('Switch') and a resource ('alert configuration'), which is clear enough to identify the action. However, it is vague about what 'switch' entails (toggle, enable/disable, change?) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like swm_enable, swm_disable, or swm_show. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity needed to differentiate.
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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The only hint is that it is a write operation requiring confirmation, which implies it is for modifying alert config, but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.