Enable/disable Wi-Fi radio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that turning off 'may disconnect the MCP client,' a critical side effect. It also mentions that it 'verify[ies] the radio state afterwards,' adding behavioral context beyond the simple action. The description does not cover idempotency or error cases, but for a simple toggle this is sufficient.

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 sentences, both immediately informative. The main action is front-loaded, and the side-effect warning is placed clearly. No filler or redundant content.

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 simple one-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers the core action, the verification step, and a critical side effect. It does not specify the exact return format, but the hint of verification implies a state report, which is adequate. Overall complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The single parameter 'state' has an enum of on/off, and the description repeats 'on or off' without explicitly mapping to the parameter or explaining any subtleties. The values are self-evident, so the description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Turn Wi-Fi on or off') and the resource (Wi-Fi radio), and adds a verification step that makes the purpose even more specific. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like wifi_status or wifi_list based on the clear verb-resource pair.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as wifi_status, wifi_list, or wifi_connect. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and generic descriptions.

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