create_wifi_broadcast

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: local validation before the request, ValueError on missing fields, controller-first validation of the type discriminator, type-specific enforcement, and required camelCase field names. This goes well beyond a simple 'creates' statement and prepares the agent for validation and API syntax constraints.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. It starts with the purpose, then gives parameter formats and payload structure in a readable block. Each sentence adds value and there is no filler, though the payload formatting could be slightly tighter.

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 covers the required identifiers, local validation, discriminator behavior, STANDARD payload keys, and camelCase requirement. Since an output schema exists, return value explanation is unnecessary. The only notable gap is not explicitly saying when not to use this tool (e.g., use update_wifi_broadcast for modifying an existing SSID), but for the creation use case it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for host, site, and broadcast, including the STANDARD payload fields and camelCase requirement. However, it does not fully enumerate all possible broadcast subfields for other types, leaving some semantics underspecified for the schema's empty 'broadcast' object.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new WiFi broadcast SSID on a site.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_wifi_broadcast, update_wifi_broadcast, and delete_wifi_broadcast by focusing on creation. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context by explaining required parameters, host/site format, and the broadcast payload shape for a STANDARD SSID. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives, but the creation verb and field guidance make it clear when to use this tool versus the sibling read/update/delete operations.

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