configure_access_point

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's key added value is that clients retain their existing association until connect_wireless reconnects them — a genuinely useful, non-obvious side effect. It could go further on defaults/permissions, but this is real context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the action and its fields are front-loaded, and the follow-up caveat about client reconnection comes second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With five parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essentials: what gets changed and the delayed effect on clients. The main omission is that the security default of 'open' is never flagged as significant, which an agent configuring wireless security arguably needs.

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 60% (key and broadcast_ssid are documented; ssid, device, security are not), so the schema carries much of the load. The description enumerates the security values and names 'SSID broadcast', which maps to parameters, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already encodes.

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 (Set) plus the exact resource fields (SSID, security, key, SSID broadcast) on an access point/wireless router, so the agent knows precisely what is configured. It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from, e.g., connect_wireless, other than a passing mention in the follow-up sentence.

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 second sentence implies the workflow — configure here, then use connect_wireless to actually reconnect clients — which effectively tells the agent when this tool's effect materializes. However it never states prerequisites, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist for the same goal, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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