Enable switch management on a DrayTek Vigor router by confirming a write operation. Provide user code, confirmation ID, and token to authorize the change.
Enable switch management (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, the confirmation flow, or what 'enable switch management' actually changes. Minimal disclosure.
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 only one sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure and fails to provide enough information to be useful. Under-specification is penalized more than verbosity.
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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot know how to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its three parameters (user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id), and the description does not mention any of them. The agent is left without any clue about what these parameters mean or how to fill them.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Enable switch management.' It is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like swm_disable or switch_on, so it loses one point.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The parenthetical about confirmation is a hint but not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.