wan_vlan

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that this is a write operation and that confirmation is required, which is useful. However, it does not explain the confirmation flow, side effects, reversibility, or what happens if confirmation fields are omitted.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and appends the key caveat in parentheses. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy. It is structurally concise despite being informationally sparse.

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?

The description announces confirmation but never explains which confirmation parameters are needed or how to obtain them, leaving a critical invocation gap. There is no output schema or annotation to compensate. An agent cannot reliably know whether to include user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id, or all of them.

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 does not explain parameters directly. 'WAN VLAN tag' implies that vid is the tag and wan is the interface, but user_code, confirm_token, and confirmation_id are left entirely unexplained despite being central to the confirmation workflow.

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 ('Set') and a precise resource ('WAN VLAN tag'), making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that read status or manage other WAN or VLAN settings. The added '(write — requires confirmation)' qualifier reinforces the operation type.

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 related siblings like wan_mtu, wan_enable, vlan_on, vlan_off, or wan_failover. No prerequisites, selection criteria, or exclusions are provided. The confirmation hint is operational, not usage guidance.

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