swm_tr069

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and at least discloses that this is a write operation and that confirmation is required. It does not, however, explain side effects, reversibility, privileges, or how the confirmation flow works, so transparency is partial.

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 short line with no filler and leads with the operation, so it is structurally efficient. However, it is under-sized: important details about parameters and the confirmation flow are omitted, making it too sparse to be 'appropriately sized.'

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 a 4-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough to invoke the tool correctly. It fails to specify valid param values, which confirmation fields are needed, how to obtain them, or what side effects occur.

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 adds no meaning for the required 'param' field beyond the generic string type. 'Requires confirmation' loosely maps to confirm_token/confirmation_id, but it does not explain their origin or relationship, leaving the main parameter undefined.

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 names a concrete resource (TR-069) and labels the operation as a write requiring confirmation, but it never states what action is performed (enable/disable/set) or what the outcome will be. 'Switch TR-069' is ambiguous as either a verb or a noun, and no differentiation from sibling tools such as sys_tr069 is offered.

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 invoke this tool instead of a read-only or other TR-069-related sibling. The only hint is the parenthetical 'write — requires confirmation,' which describes the operation model rather than use cases or alternatives.

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