v2_set_ap_load_balance

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine value: the maxClients>=5 validation guard and the force escape hatch, plus a 'READ-ONLY MODE' that returns the payload rather than sending it. The read-only mode is not tied to the dryRun parameter, leaving a small ambiguity.

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?

Three tight fragments with no filler, and the highest-value constraint (the guard) is front-loaded after the purpose statement. Structure is appropriate for a short definition.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no parameter descriptions at all and no output schema, the description only covers the guardrail behavior. An agent still lacks semantics for four of the seven inputs, so the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only explains maxClients, force, and implicitly dryRun; band, apMac, enable, and siteId remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fix or set per-radio load balancing'), and the 'per-radio' phrasing scopes it against the wider family of v2_set_* tools. It does not, however, name a sibling it overlaps with (e.g. v2_set_ap_radio), so differentiation is left to inference.

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 by the guard note ('refuses maxClients under 5 unless force:true'), which tells the agent when force is required, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling setters.

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