set_wireless_advanced

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical consequence: the radio restarts and clients on the band drop briefly, plus the confirm=True gate. It stops short of stating whether settings survive a reboot or whether omitted settings are left untouched, but the destructive profile is unusually well surfaced.

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 sentences, zero filler: the capability list comes first and the hazard warning plus confirm requirement follow. 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the risk/confirmation behavior is covered. The remaining gaps are the enumeration for 'band' and the meaning of null optionals, which leave an agent guessing on a required parameter.

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 txpower's accepted values ('high'/'mid'/'low') and names mu_mimo and airtime_fairness. However, the required 'band' parameter's accepted values are never given, and the null-default semantics of the optional fields (are they unchanged?) go unstated.

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') and names the three concrete settings it controls (tx power, MU-MIMO, airtime fairness) scoped to a band, which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as set_wifi_band, set_ofdma, or set_wireless_syspara, so an agent cannot rule those out from the description.

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 'and/or' phrasing implies these are optional, independent adjustments, and the confirm requirement acts as a usage prerequisite. But there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' statement against the many neighboring setters, and no guidance on when to prefer get_wireless_advanced or set_wifi_band.

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