update_wireless_interface

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it updates 'existing' interfaces, but does not disclose behavior regarding null values, partial updates, or whether renaming might affect references. This is minimal additional context.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word is useful, and the 'etc.' avoids unnecessary enumeration.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering idempotency/non-destructiveness, the description is adequate but not complete. It fails to address key behavioral nuances like whether optional fields are updated only when non-null, and it doesn't clarify the distinction between 'name' and 'new_name'. The gap in parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves room for misinterpretation.

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. It mentions 'name, SSID, enabled state, etc.' but omits device, comment, and new_name, and uses 'name' ambiguously—likely the identifier, not the new_name parameter. It adds no clarification about parameter roles beyond what schema titles already imply.

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 verb 'Updates' and the resource 'existing wireless interface's settings', with specific examples (name, SSID, enabled state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_wireless_interface, enable_wireless_interface, and remove_wireless_interface.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools enable_wireless_interface and disable_wireless_interface exist, but the description does not mention them or clarify that this tool is for broader setting modifications. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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