set_wifi

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds concrete, non-obvious impact: turning Wi-Fi off cuts the internet including the agent's own connection. That self-impact warning is genuinely useful context beyond the annotation, though it says nothing about recovery time or failure modes when re-enabling.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and immediately follows with the riskiest consequence. The Args block is slightly redundant in form but necessary given the schema has no parameter descriptions of its own.

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 single-parameter toggle with no output schema, the essential information — what it does, what the param means, and the harmful side effect — is present. It could go further by noting that the caller should verify state with get_wifi or that re-enabling restores connectivity.

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 carries the full burden, and it fully compensates: 'True to turn Wi-Fi on, False to turn it off' maps both boolean values to their meaning unambiguously.

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 and resource ('Turn Wi-Fi on or off') and implicitly covers the full scope of the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_wifi, though the naming makes the read/write split obvious.

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?

Usage is implied by describing the two states, and the consequence sentence hints that turning it off is a weighty action. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as checking state first with get_wifi before toggling.

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