wan_dns

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose two important traits: the operation is a 'write' and it 'requires confirmation'. However, it stops short of explaining how the confirmation flow works, what side effects occur, or what input/state changes the caller should expect.

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. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the target resource, the write nature, and the confirmation requirement.

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 six-parameter mutation tool requiring confirmation and having no output schema or annotations, this description is insufficient. It does not clarify the confirmation sequence, what values the confirmation fields expect, or what response the caller receives, leaving an agent to guess at critical invocation details.

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%, so the description should compensate for the six undocumented parameters, but it does not. 'WAN DNS servers' hints at primary/secondary DNS roles, but wan, user_code, confirm_token, and confirmation_id are not explained, leaving the confirmation-related parameters ambiguous.

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 and resource: 'Set WAN DNS servers', which clearly identifies the operation as a write to WAN DNS configuration. It is distinct from read-only sibling tools like show_dns, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any alternative.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Set' and the resource 'WAN DNS servers', so an agent can infer when to call it. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as dhcp_dns1, ip_dnsforward, or show_dns, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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