wan_disable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose that this is a write operation requiring confirmation. However, it does not explain what 'confirmation' entails, what side effects disabling a WAN interface may have, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the important write/confirmation caveat is placed immediately. It is highly efficient, though terse.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, one sentence is insufficient. The agent is left without the confirmation flow, the required vs optional confirmation fields, or the consequences of disabling a WAN interface.

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 describe any of the five parameters or how they relate to the confirmation requirement. The vague 'requires confirmation' hint does not clarify the roles of user_code, acknowledge, confirm_token, or confirmation_id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Disable') and resource ('WAN interface'), and the 'write' tag clearly marks it as mutating, which separates it from read-only siblings like wan_status. It is not a tautology and conveys the core action unambiguously.

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?

It gives clear context that this tool is for disabling a WAN interface and that it is a write operation requiring confirmation, but it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives such as wan_enable, nor does it explain the confirmation workflow. Usage is implied by the name and verb rather than explicitly spelled out.

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