v2_set_ap_rssi_kick

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it does NOT emit MBO/OCE 'cannot handle new STA' frames, and it warns of the disconnect risk. The READ-ONLY MODE note aligns with the dryRun parameter and the non-readOnly annotation rather than contradicting it.

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?

Purpose and warning are front-loaded and every sentence carries weight, though the TP-Link quotation and the bracketed READ-ONLY note add some flourish that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and modest schema coverage, the description supplies the key semantic context (threshold behavior, dry-run, disconnection side effect) and safely routes the agent to a sibling, leaving only minor parameter detail to the schema.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate more. It adds real meaning for thresholdDbm (set below the weakest signal to keep) and implicitly for band, and explains the dry-run behavior, but apMac, siteId, and enable are left to the schema.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Set the RSSI threshold that disassociates a client clinging to a weak AP.' It further grounds the purpose in the concrete problem (sticky clients) and explicitly contrasts its behavior with the sibling nonStickRoaming, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (fix for sticky clients), when-to-avoid (⚠ set it BELOW the weakest signal you still want to keep), and a named alternative (nonStickRoaming) with the condition that separates them (frame emission feeding Android's blocklist).

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