set_decryption_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it thoroughly: keys exist only in server memory (transient state), secret values are never included in responses or normal logs (security behavior), supported key types are enumerated, and replace_existing semantics (append vs. replace, empty list clears) are stated. This goes well beyond what any structured field would reveal.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, followed by behavioral context, an Args block with a worked example, and a Returns summary. Every sentence earns its place, though the supported-key-types list and memory/security paragraphs could arguably be condensed without losing value.

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 and 0% schema coverage, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, transient memory model, secrecy guarantees, valid key type values, exact parameter semantics, and what the response contains (with values omitted). An output schema exists, so not detailing the return structure further is appropriate.

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 must fully compensate, and it does. It defines capture_id (currently loaded capture), keys (key_type and value fields with a concrete example showing the wpa-pwd 'password:SSID' format), and replace_existing (true replaces, false appends, empty list clears). The schema alone (array of objects with arbitrary string properties) would leave the agent unable to construct valid input.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (configure), resource (Wi-Fi decryption keys), and purpose (for later packet analysis). None of the 22 sibling tools (load_capture, filter_packets, dissect_packet, get_* queries) perform configuration of decryption material, so the purpose clearly distinguishes it from all siblings.

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 conveys clear usage context: keys are configured 'for later packet analysis' and are 'passed to TShark whenever the capture is read', which implicitly tells the agent to set keys before reading/analyzing a capture and that keys are not persisted across sessions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool competes for this function, so the implicit guidance is sufficient.

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