router_set_lte_band

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: changing bands triggers cellular radio renegotiation, confirm must be True to execute, and force bypasses a Network Guard check. It still lacks details such as required permissions, expected downtime, or reversibility beyond setting 'auto'.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and examples, then adds a relevant warning and parameter semantics. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but still efficient and not padded.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key mutation warning and safety flags. For a no-annotation mutation tool, however, it should more fully cover prerequisites, side effects, and what happens when confirm is omitted.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so for all three parameters: band values including 'auto', confirm as the execution safety flag, and force as the Network Guard bypass, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: manually locking the router to a specific LTE band, with concrete band examples and 'auto'. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling router_set_cell_lock.

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 a usage context by mentioning optimal Hutch/Dialog 4G towers in Sri Lanka, which implies when the tool is useful. However, it does not state when to use this instead of router_set_cell_lock or when not to use it, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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