fritz_set_transmit_power

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutation tool. It says nothing about scope (which radio/band or which device), whether the change persists across reboots, whether it briefly disrupts clients, or what an out-of-range value does — real gaps for a write operation.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the enumeration of steps follows immediately. Every phrase carries 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?

A one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needs more: the description omits scope (global vs per-radio/per-band, given fritz_get_radio exists), persistence, and any confirmation of what the tool returns or how failure is signaled.

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 coverage is 0% and the lone parameter is an undescribed integer named 'step', so the description must compensate — and it partly does by decoding the scale (1=100%, then 50%, 25%, 12%, 6%). It never states the valid range explicitly (1–5), that the value maps to the 'step' parameter, or that higher step means lower power, so compensation is incomplete.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Set transmit power'), which is unambiguous against the sibling setters (band steering, channel mode, coexistence) that all act on different radio settings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus fritz_get_radio or the other radio-setting tools, and no precondition (e.g. radio must be enabled, does it apply per-band or globally). The second sentence is value-mapping, not usage guidance, leaving the agent to infer intent from the name alone.

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