unifi_update_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Update an existing network' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings not mentioned, or any rate limits or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap.

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 extremely concise at just three words. While it may be under-specified, it's not wordy or repetitive. Every word serves a purpose, and there's no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields can be modified, what the expected response looks like, or any error conditions. The agent would need to infer too much from just the three-word description given the tool's complexity.

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 6 parameters with their types, constraints, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 'Update an existing network' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (network), but it's vague about what aspects can be updated. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like unifi_update_acl_rule or unifi_update_wifi beyond the resource type, and doesn't specify whether this updates configuration, settings, or other attributes.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to identify an existing network first), nor does it differentiate from similar update tools for other resources. There's no indication of when this should be used versus creating a new network or other network-related operations.

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