wan_forward

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'write' and 'requires confirmation', but does not explain what confirmation entails, what side effects occur, or whether the operation is reversible. This is minimal and leaves critical uncertainty.

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 sentence that front-loads the key information (purpose and write/confirmation flag) with no fluff. It is concise and well-structured, though it omits substantial necessary detail.

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?

Given that this is a write operation with confirmation parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. The agent lacks information about the confirmation flow, how to obtain a confirmation token, and the meanings of the additional parameters, making a correct invocation nearly impossible.

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 must compensate, but it explains none of the four parameters. 'onoff' is an enum that the schema already shows, but 'user_code', 'confirm_token', and 'confirmation_id' are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid request.

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 operation 'Enable/disable' and the resource 'inter-WAN forwarding', which distinguishes it from read-only WAN tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like wan_enable/wan_disable, so it is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many WAN-related siblings. The note 'requires confirmation' hints at a prerequisite but does not explain when this tool should be chosen over others.

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