wan_failover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful facts — the operation is a write and it requires confirmation — which correctly implies the confirm_token/confirmation_id/user_code workflow. But it stops there: it does not say what the confirmation step involves, what risks the write carries (e.g., will it drop active links), or what state changes result, leaving the agent guessing about consequences.

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 text is brief and puts the purpose plus the key write/confirmation caveat up front, which is efficient. However, brevity here edges toward under-specification — the two fragments convey the gist but omit the parameter semantics and workflow detail that a lone agent would need, so it is concise without being complete.

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?

This is a confirmation-gated write tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, and the description explains only that confirmation is needed. An agent cannot determine what to pass in 'param', how to obtain confirm_token/confirmation_id, or what success/failure looks like. For a mutating tool of this complexity, this level of description is inadequate.

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 coverage is 0% and there are four parameters (param, user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id), yet the description explains none of them. The 'requires confirmation' phrase implicitly gestures at the token/id fields, giving a marginal hint, but it does not clarify what 'param' holds or which fields are essential for the confirmation flow. The description must compensate for the total lack of schema documentation and largely fails to.

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 gives a specific verb ('Configure') and a clear resource ('WAN failover'), which distinguishes it from the large family of read-only show_* tools in its sibling list. It does not explicitly contrast with closely related WAN write tools like wan_enable/wan_disable/wan_lb, but 'failover' is semantically distinct enough that an agent can tell the intent apart.

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 flags that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, hinting at a guarded execution workflow. However, it provides no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives — no mention of when to choose failover configuration over wan_lb, wan_forward, or wan_enable/wan_disable, and no stated preconditions such as an existing failover setup.

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