unifi_dns_policies

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint true, and the description adds critical detail: delete requires confirm to avoid accidental removal, pagination and filtering behavior are disclosed, and request-body shapes are delegated to unifi_spec. This goes well beyond the annotation and gives the agent a solid behavioral model.

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 efficiently organized: a concise operation list, then targeted notes on pagination, filtering, and request-body resolution. Every sentence provides operational value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 all aspects an agent needs: how to invoke each operation, pagination controls, filter expression grammar, and how to obtain detailed schemas via unifi_spec. It is self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning: filter expression syntax with examples, like pattern rules ('.', '*', '\'), page defaults (limit default 25 max 200, offset default 0), and which operations use which parameters. This significantly enriches the raw 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 clearly states the tool manages DNS policies with a list of operations (list, create, delete, get, update), each with a brief purpose. The specific resource ('DNS policies') distinguishes it from siblings like unifi_firewall_policies and unifi_acl_rules.

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 clear operation-specific usage (e.g., delete requires confirm: true, create/update need body via unifi_spec, list supports pagination/filtering). It does not explicitly name alternatives for when not to use this tool, but context is clear enough without exclusions.

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