unifi_create_wifi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation that might affect existing configurations, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a network configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point. Every word serves a purpose in clarifying what the tool does.

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 network creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or system impacts. Given the complexity of WiFi network configuration and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more context about how this operation fits into the broader system and what outcomes to expect.

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 all 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't need to compensate for schema 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 WiFi network (SSID)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like unifi_update_wifi or unifi_delete_wifi, but the verb 'Create' implies a distinct operation from those. The description avoids tautology by specifying what's being created rather than just restating the tool name.

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. With sibling tools like unifi_update_wifi and unifi_delete_wifi available, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools might be more suitable. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description without explicit direction.

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