fritz_set_band_steering

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that channel mode and transmit power are left untouched, which is real side-effect scope for a mutation tool, but it says nothing about persistence, client disruption during the change, or permissions required.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the action and the preserved-state caveat are both front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 one-boolean mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and non-effects but omits persistence across reboots, which bands are affected, and whether clients are briefly disconnected. Those gaps matter for a write operation with no structured backing.

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?

Only one parameter (enabled) with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'on or off' maps adequately onto the boolean, but that meaning is largely self-evident from the type and the description adds no further constraint or default behavior.

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 (turn on/off) and resource (client band steering), plus scope (on the master). 'Client band steering' implicitly separates it from the sibling fritz_set_backhaul_steering, though it never names the alternative explicitly.

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 guidance on when an agent should pick this over fritz_set_backhaul_steering or fritz_set_channel_mode, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'on the master', which is a scope note rather than routing advice.

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