instalar_tarjeta_wifi

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

Annotations are None, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It succeeds by disclosing the mutation (module swap) and its consequence (loss of the FastEthernet0 port) plus the timing constraint. It falls short of a 5 by not stating whether the change is reversible or what happens when called on an already-wireless/non-endpoint device.

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?

Purpose and the consequence (losing FastEthernet0) are front-loaded in the first paragraph, with the when-not rule and flow following logically. The 4-step flow is somewhat verbose but earns its place as concrete usage guidance. A tight, well-ordered description with minimal waste.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, it covers the what, why, when-not, ordering constraint, prerequisites (by referencing crear_dispositivo), and follow-up steps. The only gaps are error cases and reversibility, which keep it from being fully complete, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the sole parameter 'dispositivo', the description compensates by demonstrating usage in the example flow (instalar_tarjeta_wifi('LAPTOP1')). It implies the parameter must be an existing endpoint created via crear_dispositivo but never states that constraint explicitly, so it does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('changes the Ethernet module of an endpoint for a wireless card') and explains the underlying rationale (no radio, cannot associate with any SSID otherwise). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like configurar_wifi, which configures but cannot add radio capability.

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?

Provides explicit when NOT to use it (tablets and smartphones are already wireless from factory), an ordering constraint (must be done BEFORE cabling because the device loses FastEthernet0), and a full numbered flow placing it in sequence among sibling tools like crear_dispositivo and configurar_wifi. Nothing is left to inference.

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