unifi_firewall_policies

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

The description provides rich behavioral context beyond the annotations: it labels each operation by type (Read/Create/Update/Destructive), explicitly warns that delete 'requires confirm: true' and that these operations 'change or remove live configuration,' and details pagination behavior and filter expression syntax. The destructiveHint annotation is true, and the description aligns with it without contradiction.

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 well-structured with a concise operation list followed by necessary details on pagination, filtering, and confirm behavior. It is longer than a single-sentence description, but the tool has eight operations and several shared parameter conventions, so the length is justified. Each sentence contributes actionable information; no filler is present.

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 tool's complexity (8 operations, 11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: operations, request-body guidance, pagination, filtering syntax, confirm requirements, and site/console targeting. It also references unifi_consoles for console ID discovery. The description is self-sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly, making it contextually complete.

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 describes every parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining the filter expression grammar (functions like eq, like, in, plus logical combinators), pagination defaults (offset 0, limit 25 max 200), and directs users to unifi_spec for exact request-body schemas. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, especially for the 'filter' and 'body' parameters.

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 'Firewall policies and their ordering' and then enumerates eight specific operations (list, create, get_ordering, etc.), each with a clear verb and resource. This precisely defines the tool's scope and differentiates it from sibling tools like unifi_acl_rules and unifi_firewall_zones by explicitly targeting firewall policy management and ordering.

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 clearly enumerates operations and their associated HTTP semantics (Read, Create, Update, Destructive), and gives explicit guidance for using the 'confirm' parameter with delete. It also directs users to unifi_spec for request-body shapes, effectively telling them when to use unifi_spec as a supporting tool. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternative firewall-related tools, but the operation list makes the domain unambiguous.

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