upnp_on

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is a write and that confirmation is required, which is meaningful. However, it omits side effects, what enabling UPnP changes, and how the confirmation flow works.

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 compact with no filler. The core purpose and the most important behavioral caveat are both front-loaded in a single phrase.

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?

The tool has three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only provides a minimal anchor via 'requires confirmation'; it does not explain how to obtain or supply the confirmation values, what the expected result is, or when this action is appropriate.

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 explain any of the three parameters. 'Requires confirmation' hints at confirm_token and confirmation_id, but user_code remains completely unexplained, and the agent has no way to know what values to provide.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Enable UPnP'. It also signals that this is a write operation, which distinguishes it from read-only show/sys siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives like upnp_off or upnp_nat, but the enable action is sufficiently specific.

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 about when to enable UPnP versus when to use upnp_off, upnp_nat, or related show tools. The parenthetical 'requires confirmation' is a process expectation, not a use-case or selection guideline.

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