set_wifi_band

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: whether disabling a band disconnects attached clients, whether the change is persistent across reboot, whether it requires the radio to be enabled first, or whether authentication/commit is needed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action leads and the accepted values follow. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 no explanation, but for a two-required-param mutation tool with no annotations the description should still cover persistence, client impact, and preconditions. Those are absent, leaving an agent unable to predict side effects before calling.

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% — both parameters are bare 'string'/'boolean' with no enum — and the description supplies the actual allowed band literals ('2g','5g','5g_2','6g'), which is real value the schema does not carry. It still does not explain what '5g_2' denotes or what enabled=true/false does to live clients.

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+resource pair ('Enable or disable a wireless band') and enumerates the accepted band values. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_wifi_channel and set_wifi_security by the object it acts on, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and verb — an agent can infer this is the tool for toggling a band on/off — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to sibling setters (channel, security, guest network) that might also affect radios.

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