set_wireless_security_profile

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

The description provides no behavioral information about what the tool does, side effects, permissions, or return behavior. Annotations include destructiveHint false but no readOnlyHint, and the description adds nothing beyond a compatibility warning. There is no contradiction with annotations, but no value added.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence is a deprecation note and does not fulfill the tool description's purpose.

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?

With 3 parameters, no param descriptions, no usage guidance, and only a legacy warning, the description is severely incomplete. The output schema exists but cannot compensate for the missing contextual information needed for correct 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% and no parameter descriptions are provided. The description does not mention interface_name, security_profile, or device, leaving the agent without any clarification on how to populate these arguments.

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 only states 'Legacy function - not supported in RouterOS v7.x' and does not specify what the tool actually does. It fails to identify the action (setting a wireless security profile) or the resource being acted upon. This is a deprecation notice, not a purpose statement.

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 or when to use an alternative. The note about v7.x implies the tool should not be used, but does not suggest what to use instead. No usage context is provided.

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