unifi_create_firewall_zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a firewall zone but doesn't explain what that entails—such as whether it requires admin permissions, if it affects network traffic immediately, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Create') and resource ('firewall zone'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error handling, and it lacks usage guidelines. While the schema handles parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a creation tool in a network management system.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three required parameters (siteId, name, networkIds). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new custom firewall zone'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'unifi_get_firewall_zone' and 'unifi_update_firewall_zone' by specifying creation rather than retrieval or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools (e.g., 'unifi_create_network'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a site ID from 'unifi_list_sites'), when not to use it (e.g., if a zone already exists), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'unifi_update_firewall_zone' or 'unifi_delete_firewall_zone'. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios independently.

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