vsz_mark_rogue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'mark or classify' but does not clarify side effects, such as whether the existing classification is overwritten, if the AP moves between lists, or if there are any irreversible consequences. This is a mutation tool, and the absence of behavioral details 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 concise and well-structured, with a one-line purpose followed by a labeled Args section. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or fluff. The format is immediately scannable and appropriate for an API docstring.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. However, the description omits important contextual details, such as the significance of the classification labels (e.g., what 'Known' or 'Malicious' implies for the system) and whether this action is reversible. For a security-sensitive tool, this leaves the agent without enough context for safe invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description includes an Args section that explains all three parameters: host as controller IP/hostname, rogue_mac as the AP MAC, and classification with valid values (Rogue, Known, Malicious, Ignore). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and provides allowed values, which is helpful. However, the explanations are minimal and could be more descriptive.

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 starts with 'Mark or classify a rogue AP,' which clearly states the action and the target resource. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from siblings like vsz_list_rogue_aps (listing) and vsz_delete_ap (deleting). The verb 'mark/classify' is unambiguous.

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 after listing rogue APs or before other actions. It lacks explicit context like prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. The only implied usage is that this tool is for changing classification, which is not enough for an agent to decide confidently.

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