enable_wireless

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses key traits: the phone must be physically connected, no pairing code is required, and the wireless state is not persistent across reboot. It does not cover error conditions or side effects on existing connections, but it covers the critical state change and prerequisite.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler: action/outcome first, then prerequisite, usage trigger, and persistence caveat. Each sentence contributes non-redundant 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?

Most operational facts are present and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, the only input parameter is left completely undocumented, and the tool's relationship to connect_wireless/disconnect_wireless beyond pair_wireless is not addressed, leaving partial ambiguity for a simple tool.

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 0%, and the description never explains the single device argument: whether it is an ID, serial, display name, or optional value that defaults to the current phone. The schema title 'Device' and default '' are only minimal hints, so the description fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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?

Description opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Switch a cabled phone over to Wi-Fi so the cable can be unplugged.' It also stakes out its boundary from pair_wireless by noting it does not survive reboot, so the agent can distinguish the two.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the user wants to stop using the cable.' The prerequisite 'Needs the phone plugged in for this one step' and the no-pairing-code note help rule it in/out, and the reboot caveat names pair_wireless as the alternative when persistence is needed.

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