set_guest_wifi

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description is consistent with them. Beyond stating the mutation, it adds nothing behavioral – no mention of client disconnection, radio restart, or scope of effect – so with annotations carrying the load this is a bare-minimum 3.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the parameter detail follows. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the action plus the one non-obvious parameter. The remaining gap is contextual usage – no prerequisites or effect disclosure – but for a two-parameter toggle this is close to sufficient.

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, and it does for the ambiguous parameter by enumerating the valid band values (2.4, 5, or both), which the schema does not. The 'enabled' boolean is self-evident and needs no elaboration, though the description does not restate that it is required.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('turn on or off') and resource ('guest wifi network'), so the agent immediately knows what the tool mutates. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other write-oriented siblings such as set_access or apply_schedules, so it stays short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to pick instead – for example, no guidance distinguishing guest-network toggling from set_access or pause_device. Usage is only inferable from the name, which is the definition of no explicit guidance.

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