Activate a saved Wi-Fi connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool activates a connection and verifies it becomes active, and explicitly states it does not accept or create passwords. This covers the main behavioral aspects. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., disconnecting current network) or failure modes, but for a simple activation tool this level of detail is reasonable.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action (activate and verify) is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a key limitation (no passwords). Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and constraints.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what the tool does, what input it needs, and a critical constraint. It does not cover error conditions or prerequisites, but those are not essential for basic usage. The verification step is mentioned, adding expectation about behavior. Overall, it fills the gaps that would otherwise require external context.

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 schema for 'ssid' already has a description ('Saved connection name'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds clarification that this is the NetworkManager connection name, not a broadcast SSID, and reinforces the password limitation. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, so a score above the baseline of 3 is justified.

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 ('activate'), a specific resource ('NetworkManager Wi-Fi connection'), and the input (connection name). It also clarifies it operates on saved connections only, distinguishing it from tools that create or toggle Wi-Fi. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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?

The description implicitly communicates when to use this tool: when you want to activate an already-saved NetworkManager connection. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., wifi_toggle, wifi_status) or provide exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer it is not for creating new connections or handling passwords. No explicit guidance on when not to use it, but the restriction to saved connections and the password limitation provide adequate context.

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