set_wifi_password

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the change disrupts connected clients, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The bare statement 'modify password' leaves operational impact undisclosed.

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 extremely concise, using a single short phrase to convey the core purpose. It could benefit from additional structure, but it is not verbose or redundant. The brevity itself is not a drawback, though it sacrifices completeness.

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?

Given the mutating nature of the tool and the lack of annotations, the description should provide more context about the impact of changing the password, the role of the radio parameter, and any return values or expected outcomes. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain returns, but the absence of usage context and parameter details leaves significant gaps.

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%, and the description only adds the constraint 'at least 8 characters' for the password parameter. The 'radio' parameter (with default '2g') is not explained at all, leaving the agent to guess its meaning and allowed values. This incomplete compensation for schema gaps warrants a low score.

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 action 'modify Wi-Fi password' with an explicit resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_wifi_ssid or toggle_wifi, which handle different aspects of 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, nor any prerequisites or context such as requiring double-band support. The description simply states the action without elaborating on scenarios or exclusions.

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