v2_set_lan_igmp

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the failure mode where snooping without a querier halts multicast, plus the dry-run payload behavior. It does not describe permissions or rate limits, but the risk disclosure is valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then the risk warning, then the dry-run note. Every sentence carries information, though the bracketed read-only-mode phrasing is slightly awkward and could be tighter.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the critical behavioral hazard and the dry-run return behavior well. The remaining gap is siteId and per-toggle semantics, which leaves it slightly short of fully complete.

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 only 20% (networkName is the sole documented param), so the description carries the burden. It maps 'IGMP and MLD snooping' to igmpSnooping/mldSnooping and explains dryRun via the read-only-mode note, but siteId and the toggle semantics remain unexplained in both places.

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 pair (enable/disable) and precise resources (IGMP and MLD snooping) scoped to a VLAN. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling mutators like v2_set_lan_networks or v2_set_site_feature without needing to name them.

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?

It gives an important prerequisite (an IGMP querier must exist on the VLAN) and a post-action verification step (test TVs and speakers), which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to choose this over alternative tools or when not to enable it, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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