set_wifi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully warns that the operation causes a wireless restart and mandates confirm=true, but omits auth/permission requirements, expected downtime, and impact on connected clients.

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 short sentences plus one example, front-loaded with the action and the critical confirm requirement. Minimal waste; a slightly tighter phrasing of the restart rationale would be perfect.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the key hazard and the confirm gate but leaves band value semantics and the effect on existing connections unspecified.

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 clarifies confirm's mandatory semantics (despite the schema default of false) and the example hints at a valid band value ('guest_2g'). It still leaves the band domain and enable semantics unenumerated.

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 clear verb+resource pair ('Wi-Fi ON/OFF') via an example invocation, and the write semantics distinguish it from the sibling get_wifi. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the toggle action 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?

It gives one hard precondition (confirm=true is mandatory because the call triggers a wireless restart), which is genuinely actionable. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or what conditions should gate invoking it.

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