set_wifi_radio

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses two important behaviors: the operation is two-phase and the router restarts Wi-Fi, making confirmation take 1-2 minutes. That timing/restart context is exactly the kind of operational trait annotations cannot convey and helps the agent set expectations.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the operational caveat follows logically. Nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the restart/confirmation timing is covered. But for a mutation tool with 0% parameter documentation and a non-obvious 'confirm'/'expected_etag' flow, the description leaves too much for the agent to guess about invocation semantics.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains 'band' options, 'enabled', or the meaning of 'confirm' and 'expected_etag' (the latter is fully undocumented). 'Two-phase' only loosely hints at confirm, leaving most parameter meaning absent.

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 ('Turn a physical Wi-Fi radio on or off'), which is clearly distinct from sibling set_wifi_network that configures the SSID/network rather than the radio. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

Provides one concrete usage scenario ('when another access point serves Wi-Fi'), which gives useful context for when to reach for this tool. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer boundaries versus set_wifi_network.

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