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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the action (enable/disable WiFi) but does not disclose side effects, such as whether toggling WiFi disconnects current connections, requires device unlock, or affects other device state. It also doesn't mention whether the operation is asynchronous or what happens if the device is offline. For a state-changing tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague language. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 simple two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, the lack of behavioral context (side effects, prerequisites, return value) and the absence of annotations leave some gaps. An agent can call the tool correctly based on the schema and description, but it won't know what to expect after the call or whether any preconditions exist.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (udid and enable) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of 'enable or disable' aligns with the boolean parameter, but adds no new detail.

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 WiFi on an Android device' uses a specific verb (enable/disable) and resource (WiFi on an Android device), and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling device_toggle_bluetooth. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does without needing to inspect the schema.

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 implies usage context (toggle WiFi on a device) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no guidance about when not to use it, though the sibling list includes device_toggle_bluetooth, which is a related but distinct tool. The description is clear enough for basic selection but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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