vlan_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, which is useful, but it does not disclose what the confirmation flow entails, what side effects occur, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on failure. The mention of 'requires confirmation' hints at a two-step flow but leaves the mechanics unexplained.

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 sentence that front-loads the key facts: it is a write operation and requires confirmation. It is concise and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 four undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what value to pass for 'param', how to obtain or use the confirmation fields, or what the result of a successful call looks like. The sibling list shows many VLAN-related tools, but the description does not position this one among 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 does not explain any of the four parameters. The schema shows 'param' is required and 'user_code', 'confirm_token', and 'confirmation_id' are optional, but the description does not clarify what 'param' should contain or how the confirmation parameters relate to the confirmation requirement. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 and resource ('Configure VLAN group') and notes it is a write operation requiring confirmation. However, it does not explain what aspects of the VLAN group are configured (e.g., ID, members, tagging), and the name 'vlan_group' is generic enough that the description only marginally distinguishes it from siblings like vlan_on/vlan_off/vlan_status.

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 such as vlan_on, vlan_off, or vlan_status. The only hint is that it is a write operation, but there is no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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