Change a WiFi network

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

Annotations indicate destructive and open-world nature, but the description adds critical detail: 'Changes are committed and the radios reloaded.' This reveals a reload side effect beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence defines the action and identifier; the second explains partial updates and commitment behavior. Every part earns its place.

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?

The description explains what the tool does, how to identify the network, partial update capability, and behavior (commit/reload). No output schema exists, so return values are not expected. Minor omission: no mention of error cases or confirmation, but overall complete enough.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema already explains each field. The description only reiterates that any subset may be supplied, which adds no new meaning. 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?

The description clearly states the tool modifies an existing wireless network, specifies the identifier source (list_wifi_networks), and allows partial updates. This verb+resource combination is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on listing, rebooting, or status checks.

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?

The description explicitly ties usage to an ID from list_wifi_networks, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or list alternative approaches for wifi changes (though no alternatives exist among siblings). The guidance is adequate.

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