unifi_adopt_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Adopt' implies a write/mutation operation that likely changes device state, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Adopt a pending device', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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?

Given the complexity of a device adoption tool (likely a mutation with administrative impact), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (siteId and deviceId). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining where to find these IDs or their format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Adopt a pending device' clearly states the action (adopt) and target (pending device), but it's somewhat vague about what 'adopt' means operationally. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'unifi_get_device' or 'unifi_list_pending_devices', though the verb 'adopt' suggests a distinct administrative action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the device must be in a pending state, which might be inferred from 'pending device' but isn't explicit) or refer to sibling tools like 'unifi_list_pending_devices' for context.

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