unifi_firewall_zones

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior; the description adds valuable context by labeling delete as 'Destructive' and requiring 'confirm: true', with the confirm parameter warning that actions 'change or remove live configuration'. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 dense but well-structured, using line breaks to separate operations, pagination, and filtering. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no fluff, though it is slightly long due to the complexity of the filtering section.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains list result shape and directs users to unifi_spec for request-body schemas. It covers pagination, filtering, and operation usage. It could mention return values for other operations, but overall it is sufficiently complete for 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining filter function syntax (eq, ne, like, contains, etc.) and pagination field structure, adding meaning beyond the schema's simple 'Used by' notes.

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 enumerates five distinct operations (list, create, delete, get, update) with specific verbs and the resource 'Firewall Zones'. This provides strong differentiation from sibling tools that operate on other UniFi resources.

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 operational context such as pagination structure, filter syntax, and the confirm requirement for delete. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like unifi_firewall_policies, so it lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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