v2_set_ap_mgmt_ssid

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: the write silently returns success but reverts on read-back, the field is absent from all 381 GUI modules, and the tool will report 'REVERTED'. It also discloses a read-only mode that returns the payload instead of sending it. The destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations describe the nominal capability, which the description does not deny – it only documents that the effect does not persist – so this is added context, not a contradiction.

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 the critical warning in the first clause, and every sentence carries load (failure evidence, field invisibility, alternative, mode note). It is a dense run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and six undocumented parameters, the description compensates unusually well on outcome and behavior – it tells the agent the call will appear to succeed and report REVERTED, and what to do instead. What remains missing is any parameter-level meaning, which matters only if an agent still chooses to invoke it.

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?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no explanation of any of them in the description. The 'READ-ONLY MODE: returns the exact payload instead of sending it' note loosely gestures at the dryRun flag but never names it, and apMac/allAps/siteId/enable/broadcast are entirely unexplained, so the description barely compensates for the coverage gap.

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 never plainly states 'sets the AP management SSID' – the purpose has to be inferred from the tool name plus the mention of 'mgtSsidSetting' and 'no site-level control exists'. It does distinguish this from the regular-SSID siblings by naming a specific read-only field, but a deprecation notice is doing most of the work here rather than 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?

Explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'MEASURED NOT TO WORK on 6.2.14.11', 'no site-level control exists', and 'Kept only so the attempt is recorded honestly rather than repeated'. It also supplies a concrete alternative action ('Settle it with a phone scan instead'), leaving nothing to inference about whether to call it.

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