v2_set_site_roaming

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete side effects: nonStickRoaming and forceDisassociation emit MBO/OCE 'cannot handle new STA' which feeds the Android BSSID blocklist. It also explains the READ-ONLY MODE return-payload behavior tied to dryRun. Annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) are extended, not merely repeated.

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-loads the purpose, then a critical side-effect warning, then the dryRun/read-only note in one dense but waste-free block. The parameter enumeration reads as a bare list, but every clause conveys information.

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 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the key behavioral risk and the dryRun behavior, which is what an agent most needs. It falls short only on three undocumented parameters (siteId, dualBand11kReport, dryRun naming).

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%, so the description must carry the burden; it names 5 of 8 parameters and adds a protocol hint (802.11r/k) for fastRoaming, but leaves meanings of siteId, dualBand11kReport, and dryRun (only obliquely implied by READ-ONLY MODE) unexplained, so it only partially compensates.

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+resource ('Set site roaming') and enumerates the exact knobs it controls (fastRoaming 802.11r/k, aiRoaming, nonStickRoaming, pingPongSuppression, forceDisassociation), which cleanly separates it from siblings like v2_set_site_feature or v2_set_ssid.

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 only implied: the note that nonStickRoaming/forceDisassociation produce the 'phone thinks it is banned' symptom gives a diagnostic context for when these settings matter, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to an alternative tool for related roaming tasks.

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