v2_ssid_broadcast

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

The description explicitly says the tool can 'change it per-AP' (a mutation, reinforced by a dryRun parameter), while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Claiming write capability under a read-only annotation is a direct contradiction. The otherwise-useful ssidEnable vs enable semantics cannot rescue a description that misstates the tool's side-effect profile.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the high-value semantic caveat is clearly flagged with 'IMPORTANT SEMANTICS'. Dense but each sentence attempts to earn its place; only the mismatch with the actual parameter set wastes attention.

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?

A mutation-capable tool with no output schema, 5 largely undocumented parameters, and annotations that are contradicted rather than informative. Critical details such as what dryRun does and how broadcast interacts with ssidName/apName are absent, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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 20% (just apName documented), so the description must compensate. Instead it discusses ssidOverrides[].ssidEnable and `enable`, which are not among the actual parameters, while key params broadcast and dryRun go unexplained. It adds little meaning to the real input surface.

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 resource and operation: reading which APs broadcast which SSID and changing broadcast per-AP. It is concrete and not tautological. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like v2_set_ap_ssid or v2_ssids, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Use this to keep an SSID on one AP only' supplies one concrete usage scenario, which is better than nothing. But there is no statement of when NOT to use it and no named alternative, despite a crowded set of ap/ssid write siblings. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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