set_wifi_passwordChange the Wi-Fi password on an iKuai router by providing a new password of at least 8 characters, with an optional radio band selection such as 2g or 5g.
修改 Wi-Fi 密码 (至少8位)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| radio | No | 2g | |
| password | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful constraint (minimum 8 characters), but says nothing about the 'radio' parameter's effect, whether the change is disruptive to connected clients, permission/auth requirements, or reversibility of a password change.
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 short, front-loaded clause with no wasted words; the resource and the key constraint are both stated up front. Brevity here is close to optimal, though it is arguably too terse to be fully useful.
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 need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description is too thin. The meaning and valid values of 'radio' and the operational impact of the change are missing.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the 8-character minimum for 'password', which is genuinely useful, but the 'radio' parameter (default '2g', likely selecting 2.4G/5G band) is left completely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 and resource ('修改 Wi-Fi 密码'), so the agent knows it changes the Wi-Fi password. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like set_wifi_ssid or toggle_wifi, which also mutate Wi-Fi configuration.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_wifi_ssid, get_wifi_basic_settings, or get_wifi_all_settings. Usage is only implied by the tool name, and no preconditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.