wifi_set_2ghz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a mutation ('Modifie') but discloses nothing about permissions required, whether changes take effect immediately or trigger a radio restart, or whether unspecified fields are preserved.

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, zero filler, with the scope (2.4 GHz) front-loaded ahead of the calling instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description should say more about field meanings and side effects. It covers purpose and partial-update style but leaves the agent guessing about behavior.

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, so the schema only shows nullable defaults. The instruction to send only changed fields adds genuine partial-update semantics beyond the schema, but ssid/active/hidden are never explained in the description.

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 gives a specific verb ('Modifie') and resource ('réseau Wifi 2,4 GHz'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling wifi_set_5ghz and wifi_set_guest. It is clear what the tool touches, though it does not name those alternatives.

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 band qualifier ('2,4 GHz') implies when this tool applies versus the 5 GHz sibling, and 'Ne fournir que les champs à changer' gives a partial-update calling convention. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or prerequisite (e.g., auth, restart).

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