unifi_delete_wifi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete a WiFi network' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires admin permissions, affects connected devices, or has rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical context 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, direct sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. No unnecessary words or redundant information are present.

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 (destructive delete operation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error conditions, or output expectations. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (siteId, wifiBroadcastId, force). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'Delete a WiFi network' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (WiFi network) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unifi_create_wifi' and 'unifi_get_wifi' by indicating deletion rather than creation or retrieval. However, it doesn't specify scope or constraints beyond the basic 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing siteId and wifiBroadcastId), consequences of deletion, or when to use 'force' parameter. With siblings like 'unifi_delete_network' and 'unifi_delete_voucher', there's no differentiation in usage context.

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