wifi_set_guest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only notes that omitted fields are left unchanged; it says nothing about required permissions, whether a reboot/reconnect is triggered, whether existing clients are dropped, or whether the change is reversible.

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 terse sentences with the action first and the calling constraint second; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is only minimally sufficient. It conveys partial-update behavior but leaves the caller without any expectation of side effects, errors, or confirmation of success.

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% and parameters are nullable with defaults, so the schema alone is ambiguous about omission semantics. The description partially compensates by stating that only fields to change should be supplied, but it adds no meaning for ssid/active/hidden beyond their self-evident names.

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+resource: modifying the guest WiFi network ("Modifie le réseau Wifi invité"). The "invité" qualifier implicitly separates it from wifi_set_2ghz and wifi_set_5ghz, though the description never names those siblings or clarifies the relationship between the guest network and the band-specific tools.

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 useful partial-update guidance, telling the caller not to resend unchanged fields. However, there is no explicit when-to-use signal versus wifi_set_2ghz/wifi_set_5ghz/wifi_set_wpa_key, nor any stated prerequisites.

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