manage_wifi

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds context like caution against hideName (probe overhead) and recommendations for specific use cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and required fields, followed by bullet-pointed optimization tips. Structured and readable, though slightly lengthy. Could be trimmed without losing value.

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?

Covers the three actions, required parameters for create, and key configuration advice. Missing explicit return value or error handling, but for a management tool that's typical. References list_wifi for pre-checks.

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?

With 92% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond schema, e.g., optimal data rates, guest network isolation, and power-saving settings. Some parameters (e.g., enabled) lack extra detail.

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 tool performs create, update, or delete operations on WiFi SSIDs (broadcasts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_wifi by explicitly referencing it for viewing existing configs.

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?

Provides specific requirements for CREATE (listing mandatory parameters) and optimization tips for key fields. Suggests using list_wifi before modifying. Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use beyond that.

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