upnp_off

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain what the confirmation parameters are for, what happens after confirmation, whether the change is reversible, or what the response looks like. The mention of 'requires confirmation' is a start but leaves the confirmation mechanism opaque.

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 very short and front-loaded with the action, which is good. However, it's under-specified rather than concise: the parenthetical 'write — requires confirmation' is vague and doesn't earn its place because it doesn't explain the confirmation process. A slightly longer description with concrete guidance would be more valuable.

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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without knowing how to obtain user_code, confirm_token, and confirmation_id, or what the confirmation flow entails. The sibling list shows many related tools, but the description doesn't connect to them.

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 parameter information. The three parameters (user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id) are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. An agent has no way to know what values to provide or how they relate to the confirmation flow. This is a significant 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 specific verb ('Disable') and resource ('UPnP'), which clearly identifies the action. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like upnp_on or upnp_nat, but the action is unambiguous enough that an agent can tell it apart from the read-only status 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., checking current UPnP status first) or contrast with upnp_on/upnp_nat. The only hint is the parenthetical 'write — requires confirmation', which implies a confirmation flow but doesn't explain when confirmation is needed or how to obtain it.

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