v2_set_ssid

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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing that changes are 'Read-back verified' and by flagging that prohibitWifiShare is a TTL clamp that 'breaks VMs and hotspots'. The bracketed READ-ONLY MODE note explains what dryRun actually does, which is real value-add rather than 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 verb and resource, then a compact enumeration of the affected fields and a bracketed mode note. Nearly every clause carries information; the parentheticals are load-bearing warnings rather than 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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, read-back verification, the dry-run/read-only mode, and a key side-effect warning. It lacks permission/failure semantics, but the essential call-time context is present.

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 25%, so the description must carry more weight; it names most config parameters (enable, broadcast, enable11r, pmfMode, guestNetEnable, prohibitWifiShare, vlanId) but gives little semantic detail and omits siteId, band, and dryRun. It adds a meaningful warning for prohibitWifiShare but does not fully compensate 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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and a clearly scoped resource ('one SSID'), then enumerates the configurable attributes (enable/disable, broadcast, 802.11r, PMF, guest isolation, VLAN, rate-limit). An agent can tell it's the SSID setter, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like v2_set_ap_ssid or v2_ssids.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. The agent must infer that this tool applies to a single SSID versus the AP-level or site-level setting tools, with no explicit routing.

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