update_wlan_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does but does not disclose behavior such as whether the payload is merged or replaces the entire config, whether unknown fields are rejected, whether it validates passphrase/security combinations, or what happens on partial failure. It is not misleading, but it leaves important behavioral context unstated.

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 reasonably compact, leading with the core action and then providing parameter clarifications. The parameter explanations are embedded in a paragraph rather than structured, but each sentence serves a purpose. The 'payload: fields to update' line with examples adds value without bloating the description.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response will be, how to construct the payload reliably, whether the operation is reversible, or what field constraints apply. An agent could issue a call but would be guessing on payload structure and return handling.

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 add brief meaning for all four parameters (host as console name/ID/composite ID, site as name/ID, wlan_id as config ID, payload as fields to update with examples). However, the payload semantics are under-specified—no format, no allowed values, no required vs optional sub-fields—leaving the agent to guess at the structure.

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 ('Update') and resource ('WLAN (SSID) configuration by ID'), which clearly identifies the operation. The parameter list further clarifies what is being updated. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_wlan_config or update_wifi_broadcast, though the distinct resource and verb make the core purpose 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 lists parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention that get_wlan_config might be needed first to obtain the wlan_id, nor does it address partially-update vs full-replace semantics that would distinguish it from other update tools.

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