wifi_set_5ghz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at partial-update semantics, but says nothing about side effects (client disconnection when the SSID changes), whether changes apply immediately or require a reboot, or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the key constraint. No filler, though the constraint sentence is terse to the point of under-specification.

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 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves too much unsaid: side effects on connected clients, whether the WPA key is affected, and what each field controls are all absent.

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%, so the description must explain ssid, active, and hidden. It only states that unchanged fields should be omitted, adding partial-update semantics but no meaning for any individual parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Modifie') and resource ('le réseau Wifi 5 GHz'), which cleanly separates it from wifi_set_2ghz and wifi_set_guest by band. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the band qualifier makes the distinction inferable.

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?

'Ne fournir que les champs à changer' gives a partial-update usage rule, implying optional fields and sparse updates. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over wifi_set_2ghz/wifi_set_guest, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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