update_mobility_device_wireless

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly covers the guarded write nature, live config mutation, read-before/read-after behavior, confirm guard, kill-switch, the lack of a no-op short-circuit, and the fact that the password is not echoed back. This is exemplary transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by scope constraints and detailed parameter semantics. Every sentence contributes operational information, and there is no filler or redundancy. The structure makes it easy to parse quickly.

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 is operationally complete: it explains what is mutated, what is and is not configurable, parameter sources and formats, the confirm guard, and important response behavior. Since an output schema exists, there is no need to spell out return values. This is enough for an agent to call the tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates. It documents every parameter, including where workspace_id and device_id come from, length constraints for ssid and password, the confirm requirement, and the optional key_label behavior. No parameter is left unexplained.

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 action and resource: 'Update a UMR device's WiFi SSID + password (guarded write).' It also says 'Mutates live config,' which sets expectations. The focus on wireless credentials distinguishes it from siblings like update_mobility_device_name and update_mobility_device_network.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for updating WiFi SSID and password, and explicitly states that channel/TX power/security protocol are not configurable here. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like update_mobility_device_network, so some routing still depends on tool naming conventions.

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