update_mobility_device_wireless

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond schema: the confirm flag 'Must be true to apply the change' and that dry_run previews without applying. However, it says nothing about what happens to existing WiFi settings, whether the update replaces or merges, required permissions, or reversibility.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource sentence, then a compact Args list; appropriately sized with no filler. Docking a point only because the parameter block partially duplicates the schema and contains the stray 'settings' entry.

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 needn't be explained. For a 7-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description covers most arguments and the safety gate but omits the controller parameter, the 'settings' argument it does mention is phantom, and it gives no permission or side-effect context.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain ssid/password/confirm/dry_run meaningfully. But it lists a 'settings' argument that does not exist in the schema while omitting the real 'controller' parameter, so the added semantics are partially inaccurate.

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 (Update) and resource (WiFi settings on a UniFi Mobility device), which is materially more precise than the sibling update_mobility_device or update_mobility_device_network. The WiFi/wireless scope does most of the differentiation, though it never explicitly says how it differs from update_mobility_device_network.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite living among several adjacent mobility update tools. The description only lists arguments, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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