toggle_wifi

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds that it toggles a WiFi radio, but does not disclose whether active connections are dropped or whether the change is immediate and reversible; with annotations present, this is adequate but with clear behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the action and target.

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 zero-parameter toggle with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. However, it omits what happens to existing WiFi connections and when this should be preferred over connect/disconnect operations, leaving a meaningful context gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the action itself. The schema is empty and the description does not contradict it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Toggle WiFi radio on or off." It is clear enough to separate this from connect_wifi and disconnect_wifi by focusing on the radio rather than a network connection, but it does not explicitly name or exclude any sibling tool.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this instead of siblings such as connect_wifi, disconnect_wifi, list_wifi_networks, or get_network_status. It leaves the agent to infer that this changes the WiFi radio state rather than managing networks.

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