unifi_update_acl_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity of an update operation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address mutation risks, success/failure outcomes, or contextual usage, making it inadequate for safe agent invocation despite good schema coverage.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 where 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 'Update an ACL rule' clearly states the action (update) and resource (ACL rule), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'unifi_update_firewall_zone' or 'unifi_update_network' beyond the resource type, nor does it specify what aspects of an ACL rule can be updated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing ACL rule ID), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'unifi_create_acl_rule' or 'unifi_delete_acl_rule' in a workflow.

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