update_wifi_broadcast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states that broadcast is the 'full WiFi broadcast configuration to replace with', which hints at a destructive overwrite, but does not mention whether changes are reversible, require special permissions, or affect connected clients. Given it is a write operation with no annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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: the main purpose appears in the first clause, followed by concise per-parameter notes. No filler or repeated schema information. Every sentence provides value.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are not needed. The parameter explanations are solid, but the missing usage guidance and security/reversibility notes leave the contextual picture incomplete for a mutation tool. It is adequate for basic invocation but lacks deeper context that an agent might need to avoid unintended side effects.

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. It does so by explaining every parameter: host format (console name, ID, or composite ID), site name/ID, broadcast as full replacement config, and broadcast_id with a source reference to list_wifi_broadcasts. The only weakness is that the structure of broadcast object is not elaborated, but the description adds significant meaning beyond bare schema.

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 starts with 'Update an existing WiFi broadcast SSID' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this as a modification operation on an existing resource, contrasting with sibling create_wifi_broadcast and delete_wifi_broadcast. The scope 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 phrase 'Update an existing' implies this tool is for modifying already-created broadcasts, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not mention alternatives like create_wifi_broadcast or delete_wifi_broadcast or state conditions that would select one over the other. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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