fritz_set_coexistence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only coexistence is changed and other radio settings are left alone, but it says nothing about permissions, persistence, reversibility, or effects on connected clients.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action and the key non-effects immediately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and scope. However, it omits prerequisites, permission requirements, and what a successful response indicates, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking a write operation.

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 single boolean parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'on or off' maps directly to the required boolean 'enabled', which is adequate for this simple case but does not add details such as defaults or error 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: turning 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi coexistence on or off. It also distinguishes the operation from sibling setters by clarifying that it does not change steering, channel, or power.

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 provides clear context for use: toggling coexistence specifically, and it excludes adjacent settings such as steering, channel, and power. It does not explicitly say when coexistence should be enabled or disabled, nor does it name alternative tools, so it falls short of the top score.

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