v2_set_ap_radio

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: DFS/weather-radar warnings, read-back verification of the applied change, and the read-only payload-return mode. These are operationally important traits an agent needs before invoking a radio reconfiguration.

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 action and the most decision-relevant detail (real units), followed by warnings and verification. Sentences are dense and earn their place, though the bracketed read-only note is a bit tacked-on in placement.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers behavior, warnings, and verification adequately for a mutation tool, but with 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage the parameter picture is incomplete. It is sufficient to attempt a call but not to fully specify one.

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 coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It usefully clarifies units for channel and widthMHz and implicitly explains the dryRun/read-only behavior, but leaves apMac, band, siteId, and txPowerDbm entirely undocumented.

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 (Set) and resource (AP radio) plus the exact fields it controls: channel, width, and tx power. The 'REAL UNITS' framing and the explicit '(channel 100, widthMHz 40)' example make the intent unambiguous and separable from read-only siblings like v2_ap_radios.

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?

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g., v2_rf_planning, v2_ap_radios, or the other v2_set_ap_* tools). Usage is only implied by the tool name; there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing hints.

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