unifi_delete_voucher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting connected users), or provides confirmation feedback. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a destructive operation.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it highly efficient. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), usage context (e.g., when to use vs. bulk deletion), and expected outcomes (e.g., success confirmation or error messages). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to safely and effectively invoke the tool.

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, with both parameters ('siteId' and 'voucherId') documented as 'Site ID' and 'Voucher ID' respectively. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete a hotspot voucher' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (hotspot voucher), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unifi_bulk_delete_vouchers' or 'unifi_get_voucher', but the verb 'delete' is specific enough to convey the core function.

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 an existing voucher), contrast with 'unifi_bulk_delete_vouchers' for multiple deletions, or specify error conditions. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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