set_twt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it warns the radios restart and clients drop briefly, and that confirm=True is required. It leaves open whether the setting persists across reboots and what happens if confirm is omitted, but the disruptive behavior is clearly disclosed upfront.

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 compact lines: the capability is first, the disruptive side effect and prerequisite warning second. There is no filler and the ordering matches how an agent should evaluate the call.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, side effect, and the confirm prerequisite, which is nearly everything needed for a two-parameter mutation; only persistence and the confirm=False failure mode are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the confirm flag's required value, which is the non-obvious parameter, but adds nothing about 'enabled' beyond what the verb 'enable/disable' already implies, and doesn't state the effect of confirm=False.

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 pair (enable/disable) tied to a named resource (Target Wake Time) and immediately glosses the acronym as Wi-Fi 6 power-save, so an agent understands the feature without prior domain knowledge. The feature name cleanly separates it from siblings like set_ofdma and set_smart_connect.

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 parenthetical 'eases iOS/phone battery drain' implies the motivating use case, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of cases where it should not be enabled, and no comparison against the other radio-toggle siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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