asuswrt_dhcp_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'enable or disable' which implies state mutation, but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether existing DHCP leases are affected), required permissions, or the meaning of confirm and dry_run parameters. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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, which is concise. However, conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness; key information about parameters and behavior is omitted. It is appropriately sized for a simple toggle but lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or parameter guidance).

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 the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain return values, side effects, or the interaction between parameters. For example, what happens if dry_run is true? What does confirm do? The description is far from complete for an agent to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters (enabled, confirm, dry_run). The schema provides only types and defaults, so an agent has no semantic understanding of how these parameters affect the DHCP server operation. The description should have clarified the role of confirm and dry_run, especially given they are not self-explanatory.

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 action (enable or disable) on a specific resource (DHCP server). It is a direct verb+resource pairing, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like asuswrt_dhcp_config which might also modify DHCP settings. The name itself provides context, so clarity is high but differentiation is lacking.

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. For example, there is no mention that asuswrt_dhcp_config exists for more detailed configuration, or what prerequisites (e.g., router access) are needed. The description implies a simple toggle but gives no usage context.

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