configure_wifi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior: a typed password is never returned to chat and is saved under ~/mikrotik-sites/<site>/, generated passwords appear only in a local popup, and mixed WPA2-WPA3 falls back to WPA2 on the legacy driver. However, for a mutation tool it omits critical behavioral facts: whether changes take effect immediately or must be committed via apply_changes/confirm_changes, and how dry_run (default true) and rollback_minutes actually behave.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a scannable parameter list. Every sentence carries information; there is no filler. Slight deduction for the trailing driver-compatibility note being placed last rather than near the security parameter it qualifies.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description leaves material gaps: the dry_run/rollback and apply/confirm workflow is unclear, and five parameters go unexplained. It covers the security-sensitive password handling well but is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 for 11 parameters. It does well on the risky ones: password modes, generate_password, security enum values (wpa2 / wpa2-wpa3 / wpa3), interfaces default 'all', and country. But name, site, dry_run (notably defaulting to true, meaning no change is applied unless overridden), ensure_ap_mode, and rollback_minutes are never explained, leaving the mutation-safety parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Set SSID and Wi-Fi password on the router's Wi-Fi interfaces.' That is unambiguous about what the tool changes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby sibling setup_bridge_with_wifi_subnet, which also touches 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?

Usage is implied through parameter guidance ('leave empty to have the user type it in a local popup (preferred)', 'country: ... Recommended on first setup'), which tells the agent something about when certain options are appropriate. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over setup_bridge_with_wifi_subnet, apply_changes, or confirm_changes, nor any preconditions such as an active session.

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