v2_set_ssid_rate_control

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it pre-warns about clients that would fall below the new floor before sending, discloses the READ-ONLY payload-return mode, and notes the ERP-protection penalty and 6.2.14.11 field verification. Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly false, idempotent true), so this is supplementary but valuable.

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+resource, then dense but purposeful detail in one sentence plus a bracketed mode note. Every clause carries information, though the sentence is packed and requires careful parsing.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 60% schema coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral and safety context (dry-run, pre-send warnings, illegal rate combinations). Only the undocumented parameters are left unaddressed.

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 only 60% (10 params, several with no description), and the description mostly restates what the schema already documents (CCK, min rate, beacons). It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (siteId, enable, ssidName, dryRun), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with scope: '802.11 rate control per SSID', then enumerates the exact settings it touches (CCK, min rate, beacon rate, client enforcement). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like v2_set_ssid or v2_set_ap_radio without opening the schema.

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?

It explains what the levers do and mentions the read-only/dry-run mode, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over v2_set_ssid, v2_set_ap_radio, or v2_rf_planning. Usage is implied by the domain rather than stated.

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