Upgrade Ap Firmware

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the single most important trait: the AP will restart, i.e. a disruptive, service-interrupting operation. It still omits whether the upgrade is reversible/rollback-capable, whether AP configuration is preserved, expected downtime, and any permission requirements.

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 payload-carrying line with zero filler, and the destructive warning is placed prominently after the action. It is efficient, though so terse that the warning is the only thing the agent walks away with.

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 disruptive mutation tool with no annotations the brief is inadequate: the confirm flag, version provenance, downtime expectations, and rollback behavior are all absent.

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 adds nothing about any of the three parameters. In particular the undocumented 'confirm' boolean (default false) is invisible to the agent, and there is no hint about the expected format or source of 'version' or the meaning of 'ap_id'.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('升级 AP 固件' / upgrade AP firmware) that clearly distinguishes it from the router-level siblings start_firmware_upgrade and check_firmware_update. It does not, however, explicitly relate itself to adjacent siblings such as restart_ap, get_ap_firmware_versions, or list_ap_devices, so the agent must infer the workflow boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. obtain a valid version first from get_ap_firmware_versions), and no indication of what to do if the AP is offline. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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