toggle_wifi

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

Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency (idempotentHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action, such as side effects (e.g., disconnecting active connections) or system-level impact. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes no extra transparency.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It immediately states the action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool is simple, with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core action but omits any mention of return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., administrative rights). For a tool of this simplicity, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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. The single boolean 'enabled' is not explicitly mapped (true=enabled, false=disabled), but the verb phrase 'enable or disable' strongly implies the mapping. For a trivial single-parameter boolean, this implicit meaning is sufficient, though not explicitly stated.

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 uses a specific verb ('enable or disable') and resource ('WiFi radio'), clearly distinguishing this from read-only tools like get_wifi_status and connection-specific tools like connect_wifi or disconnect_wifi. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 alternatives such as connect_wifi or disconnect_wifi. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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