cmw_wlan_set_standard

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether setting the standard resets existing measurements, requires a connection, or takes effect immediately), leaving the agent without crucial operational context.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word adds 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 mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks any mention of when the standard can be changed, whether it affects other WLAN settings, or what success/error responses look like. Contextual details are absent.

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 only 50% (standard and meas_instance have descriptions; host and port do not). The description lists the enum values, but the schema already does that, and it adds no explanation for host/port or their roles, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the specific verb 'Set' and identifies the exact resource ('WLAN 802.11 standard') with the accepted values (A/B/G/N/AC/AX). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like cmw_wlan_set_bandwidth or cmw_wlan_set_frequency.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, interdependencies with other WLAN settings, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., cmw_wlan_configure) would be more appropriate.

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