asuswrt_upnp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions the basic toggle function. It does not disclose behavioral traits like dry_run simulation, confirm safeguards, or side effects of enabling/disabling UPnP (e.g., automatic port forwarding).

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 extremely short (one sentence) and front-loaded, which is good for quick scanning. However, it is too minimal to be genuinely helpful, sacrificing essential detail 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?

Given the absence of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete. The description does not explain the behavior of confirm and dry_run, nor does it set expectations about return values or side effects.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning for any parameter. The 'enabled' role is vaguely implied by the description, but 'confirm' and 'dry_run' are completely unexplained, leaving the agent uncertain about their semantics.

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 'Enable or disable UPnP' clearly states the specific action (toggle) and resource (UPnP). It unambiguously indicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like asuswrt_upnp_status which merely query the status.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as asuswrt_upnp_status for viewing state or asuswrt_port_forwarding for managing specific rules. It lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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