router_set_guest_wifi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real context: 'force' bypasses a named 'Network Guard' safety check, 'allow_lan' toggles guest isolation, and password rules are spelled out. It still omits whether disabling kicks connected guests, whether changes are reversible, and what a non-confirmed call actually does.

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?

The one-line purpose sits up front followed by a compact Args list, so an agent can scan to the field it needs. The Args block is essentially re-documentation of the schema, but since the schema has zero coverage, no sentence is wasted.

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 7-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers every field's meaning and the safety-flag behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. What's missing is the operational contract: what 'confirm' gates, what an omitted field does to live state, and whether the router must be in a particular mode first.

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% (bare types and defaults only), so this description does the heavy lifting: it supplies the band enum values ('2.4GHz', '5GHz', 'both'), the password length/open-network rule, and the isolation semantics of allow_lan, none of which are in the schema. It falls short of 5 because the all-optional null defaults for ssid/password/allow_lan are never resolved (keep existing vs. clear), which is exactly what an agent needs to know.

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 ('Configures or toggles dual-band Guest Wi-Fi networks and local LAN isolation'), which cleanly separates it from router_get_guest_wifi (read) and router_set_wifi_radio (main radio). It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus router_get_guest_wifi (to inspect first) or router_set_wifi_radio, and no prerequisites are stated. The presence of a 'confirm' flag hints at a two-step apply flow, but the description never explains when confirm must be true or what happens to an existing guest network when it is omitted.

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