wan_lb

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation and that it requires confirmation, which is useful. But it doesn't explain the confirmation flow, side effects, or whether existing load-balancing settings are replaced, so it only partially fulfills the burden.

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 compact sentence with the action and caveat front-loaded; no wasted words. It is not padded, though it sacrifices useful content for brevity.

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, 0% parameter coverage, and 4 parameters, an 8-word description is far from complete. The confirmation workflow and the meaning of the parameters are entirely missing.

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 the description does not mention any of the four parameters. The required 'param' string, plus optional user_code, confirm_token, and confirmation_id, receive no semantic explanation, so an agent cannot infer what values to pass.

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?

States a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('WAN load balancing'), and flags it as a write action, which separates it from the many read-only 'show_*'/status siblings. It doesn't explicitly compare against related WAN config siblings like wan_failover or wan_budget, so not a 5.

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?

Only implies the use case (configuring WAN load balancing) and the confirmation requirement. Gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool names, and no workflow around the required confirmation.

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