toggle_guest_wifi

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core state-change behavior (enable or disable) but does not mention potential side effects such as disconnecting connected devices or a brief network interruption. For a simple boolean toggle, this is minimally acceptable but lacks deeper transparency.

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 a single succinct sentence that gets straight to the point with no redundant words. It effectively front-loads the action and target, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and effect. It lacks explicit mention of the return value or error handling, but the complexity is low enough that the current description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter 'enable' with a clear description ('true = enable, false = disable'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Enable or disable') and the exact resource ('FRITZ!Box guest WiFi network'). It distinguishes itself from the broader sibling 'toggle_switch' by targeting a specific feature, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage: this tool is for controlling the guest WiFi network. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. The usage context is clear but not formally guided.

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