Включить/выключить Wi-Fi сеть

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

Annotations already provide the intent profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and the description adds minimal extra behavior: it clarifies that the target is an access point and gives a guest network example. It does not mention side effects like disconnecting clients or how dryRun/confirm work, but those are also present in the parameter descriptions.

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?

The tool description is a single concise sentence that covers the intent without unnecessary repetition or padding. The inline example is helpful and does not cause unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description plus the parameter schema and annotations provide enough detail for a simple toggle operation: the main parameter semantics are covered, the mutation profile is clear, and there is no output schema to worry about. Only the usage guidance, which was scored separately, is missing.

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?

The description adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema by mapping the boolean `enabled` parameter to action of 'up' or 'down', and by clarifying that the target is a specific access point (interfaceId). Since the schema leaves `enabled` undocumented, this fills an important gap rather than repeating what is already present.

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 uses a clear action ('Поднимает или гасит') and a specific resource ('указанную точку доступа') with an illustrative example (guest network). This directly conveys that the tool toggles a Wi‑Fi access point on or off, and it naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like set_wifi_password or route/port operations.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus other settings tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint about the interfaceId comes from the schema, not the description, so an agent must discover usage context from elsewhere.

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