set_wifi_ssid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: write gating by environment variable, preview versus apply semantics, ROS generation detection, failure behavior when the interface is not found, and the important ROS7 nuance that the write may actually land on a referenced configuration profile. This is exactly the kind of beyond-schema context an agent needs for a destructive-capable operation.

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 action, then immediately surfaces the write guard and confirm pattern before detailing ROS-specific resolution. It is longer than typical but most sentences carry necessary safety or routing information; minor tightening could improve it, preventing a 5.

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 complex write tool with no annotations, a 0%-covered schema, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers permissions, preview/apply, generation differences, error conditions, and the ROS7 profile redirection. The main remaining gap is the unexplained device_name parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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 for four parameters. It explains confirm's default and preview behavior and clarifies how interface_name is resolved on ROS7 and ROS6, but device_name is never explained and new_ssid is only implied by the tool's name. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema is a 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Set a wireless interface's SSID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling wireless tools like set_wireless_channel or set_wireless_tx_power, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks the explicit sibling routing that a 5 would require.

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?

Gives strong operational context: it is a guarded WRITE tool blocked unless MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true, and it explains the confirm=False preview then confirm=True apply two-step pattern. It also explains ROS7/ROS6 interface resolution and error behavior, but does not compare when to use this versus sibling wireless tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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