set_upnp

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but idempotent and non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description introduces "Two-phase" without explaining what the phases are, what confirm=false does (preview? no-op? error?), or that changes to UPnP affect NAT traversal for devices on the LAN. For a settings mutation, that is a substantial unexplained behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is efficient but tips into under-specification given the tool's hidden two-phase mechanics.

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?

A three-parameter settings mutation with a two-phase protocol, an etag parameter, and zero schema coverage needs a real explanation of the confirm/etag workflow. The description offers six words and leaves the agent to guess at the contract, which is inadequate despite an output schema existing.

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% across three parameters: confirm, enabled, and expected_etag. The description adds no meaning for any of them — it never mentions confirm, never explains the etag's optimistic-concurrency role, and never states that enabled is the required switch. Only "two-phase" faintly alludes to confirm, and that is far too indirect.

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?

"Enable or disable UPnP" gives a specific verb pair plus resource, and it clearly separates this tool from the read-only sibling get_upnp_settings. The only weakness is the trailing fragment "Two-phase.", which gestures at a mechanism without stating what it is.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, though the existence of get_upnp_settings makes the read-vs-write split fairly obvious. "Two-phase" hints that a confirm step may be required but never tells the agent when or why to use it.

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