wifi_set_wpa_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states this is a mutation and gives a key-length rule, but says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, whether changing the WPA key drops connected clients, or whether the change takes effect immediately.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, mentioning the key-length rule as a compact parenthetical. Efficient and well-structured, though it is slightly terse given the absence of behavioral context.

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 low-complexity two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter validity but omits the behavioral consequences of the change. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps an agent would want before invoking a key-changing write.

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 both required parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does so well: it enumerates the accepted band values ('2.4ghz', '5ghz', 'guest') and gives the new_key length constraint (8-63 characters), adding real meaning for both parameters.

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 (change) and resource (the WPA key) scoped to a band, so an agent can distinguish it from the getter wifi_get_wpa_key and the band setters. It is clear but does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so it stops short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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?

It lists valid band values but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing relative to alternatives like wifi_set_2ghz, wifi_set_5ghz or wifi_set_guest. The conditions for choosing this tool over its siblings are left entirely to inference.

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