wan_mtu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation is a write and 'requires confirmation', which is valuable. However, it does not explain how confirmation works, what the side effects are, or whether the change 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, tightly scoped phrase with the core action front-loaded and the key caveat (write/confirmation) in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It says confirmation is required but does not state how the agent should obtain or supply the confirmation fields, and it leaves the meaning of the optional parameters ambiguous.

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 for the five undocumented parameters. It does not. The words 'Set WAN MTU' give some context that wan is the WAN interface and mtu is the desired value, but the confirmation-related parameters (user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id) and their roles are completely unexplained.

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 'Set WAN MTU' names a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical 'write' explicitly marks it as a mutation, distinguishing it from the many read-only show/status siblings such as wan_status or wan_detect_mtu. Despite the missing title, an agent can clearly tell what this tool does.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like wan_detect_mtu or wan_detect_mtu6. The description implies usage through the command itself, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or which sibling should be used for MTU detection rather than setting.

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