set_regulatory_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly identifies the operation as a state-changing set action and explains the consequence (channels and transmit power levels become restricted). However, it does not mention prerequisites such as administrative privileges, whether the change persists across reboots, or whether active Wi-Fi connections could be disrupted.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: the action, the behavioral consequence, and the parameter format. There is no filler or redundant restating of schema information.

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 tool with a single required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details and behavioral intent. It is slightly incomplete only because it omits explicit usage guidance relative to get_regulatory_domain and possible side effects, but the low complexity makes the description largely sufficient.

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 schema only describes the parameter as a string with no further detail. The description adds essential semantics by specifying the exact format — two-letter ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code — and provides concrete examples ('US', 'GB', 'DE'), fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the action 'Set the Wi-Fi regulatory domain (country code) on the WLAN Pi' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the purpose by noting this controls permitted channels and transmit power levels, making it easy to distinguish from the sibling get_regulatory_domain.

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 implies usage: use this when you need to change the Wi-Fi regulatory domain. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_regulatory_domain for reading the current setting, so the guidance is mostly 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.