unifi_create_voucher

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. 'Create hotspot vouchers' indicates a write operation but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns voucher codes). It doesn't address potential side effects like network access changes or system impacts.

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 just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any fluff. Every word ('Create', 'hotspot', 'vouchers') earns its place by specifying the action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the broader system (e.g., for guest Wi-Fi access), what the output looks like (voucher codes or confirmation), or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a creation tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to guide 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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 8 parameters (e.g., timeLimitMinutes range, count default). Since schema_description_coverage is high, the baseline is 3—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to, as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 'Create hotspot vouchers' clearly states the action (create) and resource (hotspot vouchers), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like unifi_get_voucher (read) and unifi_delete_voucher (delete), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like unifi_create_network or unifi_create_wifi beyond the resource type.

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), compare to similar tools (e.g., unifi_authorize_guest for guest access), or specify scenarios where voucher creation is appropriate over other access methods. Usage is implied by the name but not explained.

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