unifi_acl_rules

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

Even though annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds valuable behavior: paginated list results with offset/limit, detailed filter expression syntax, and the convention that request-body shapes are retrieved via unifi_spec. It also explicitly flags delete as requiring confirm: true. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact but information-dense, using a bulleted operations list, a short paragraph on pagination, and a focused paragraph on filtering. It ends with a necessary reference to unifi_spec. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information (operations) is front-loaded.

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 multi-operation tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the full operation list, pagination, filtering, and the path to get request bodies. It does not explicitly state return shapes for non-list operations, but the unifi_spec pointer likely covers those, so the description is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 already provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the filter expression grammar (property.function(args), combining with and/or/not, supported functions, quoting rules) and by pointing to unifi_spec for body schemas, which adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'ACL rules and their ordering' and lists all seven operations with explicit action verbs (List, Create, Reorder, Delete, Get, Update), clearly identifying the tool's scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly managing ACL rules rather than firewall policies or DNS policies.

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?

It provides clear context for each operation, including a note that delete requires confirm: true, and explains when list, create, get_ordering, update_ordering, delete, get, and update are appropriate. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state exclusions (e.g., 'use unifi_firewall_policies for firewall rules'), so it falls just short of a 5.

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