update_device_wtp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the partial-update semantics, that repointing wtp_profile drops the reference from the old profile, and that FortiManager prunes an unreferenced wtp-profile on the next install_device_settings. These are non-obvious destructive side effects an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 core statement and the highest-risk warning before the parameter list; every sentence earns its place except the trailing 'Returns: Update result', which conveys nothing. Slight verbosity in 'FortiAP (WTP) profile name to assign' but overall tight.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description supplies update semantics, every parameter's meaning, allowed enum values, and the downstream pruning hazard. An output schema exists, so the thin return note is not a real gap — an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does: every one of the 8 params is explained beyond its title, including that wtp_id is the FortiAP serial / table mkey, that device is the managed device name, and that admin accepts exactly "discovered", "enable" or "disable" — an enumeration the schema does not encode. The vdom default is also restated with meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: updating fields on a device-DB managed FortiAP, with the partial-update rule ('Only provided fields change') stated up front. It implicitly separates itself from profile-level siblings by noting that wtp_profile here is only a name to assign, but it never names update_device_wtp_profile_radio or update_device_wtp_profile to route the agent explicitly.

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 clear operational context: use this to change individual AP fields, and it points to create_device_wtp/install_device_settings for understanding the pruning consequence. There is no explicit when-not-to-use clause or named alternative for editing the profile object itself, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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