unifi_power_cycle_port

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. 'Power cycle' implies a disruptive action that will temporarily interrupt connectivity, but the description doesn't state this explicitly, nor does it mention permissions required, whether the action is reversible, expected duration, or error conditions. For a potentially disruptive operation, this is inadequate.

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 immediately. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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 disruptive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'power cycle' entails behaviorally, what the expected outcome is, or any side effects. The agent must guess whether this is a safe operation and what results 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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (siteId, deviceId, portIdx). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through schema alone, with no additional value from the description.

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 specific action ('Power cycle') on a specific resource ('a specific port on a device') with additional technical detail ('PoE restart'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unifi_restart_device' by specifying port-level rather than device-level restart.

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 (like needing device/port identification first), when port cycling is appropriate versus device restart, or what problems it solves. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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