Сменить пароль Wi-Fi

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation, so the basic mutating behavior is already known. However, the description discloses nothing beyond annotations: it fails to note the possibility of preview via dryRun, the mandatory confirm requirement, or the side effect of existing Wi-Fi clients being disconnected when a password is changed. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 description is a single, compact sentence that directly explains the core function with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main verb and object and earns its place in the definition.

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?

Together with the fully documented input schema, the tool is invocable correctly if the agent reads xem. However, the description alone does not fully capture the important confirm/dryRun behavior. There is no output schema and no explicit statement of what the tool returns, which leaves some ambiguity about the operation's result. It is adequate but not rich.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with clear descriptions, including psk length, interfaceId format, dryRun behavior, and confirm semantics. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much here. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, making a baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action: it sets a new WPA-PSK password on a specific access point. This naturally differentiates it from sibling tools like set_wifi_enabled, which toggles Wi-Fi, and other router configuration 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?

The description provides no usage guidance or exclusions. It does not mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives, does not state that confirm must be true to actually apply the change, and does not alert the agent to the dryRun preview option. These important invocation decisions are left fully undeclaremelded.

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