unifi_wifi_broadcasts

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

Annotations already mark this as destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by labeling delete as 'Destructive' and stating it 'requires confirm: true'. It also discloses pagination behavior and list result structure, which adds transparency beyond the annotation flags.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and operation list, followed by concise pagination/filtering reference and a pointer to unifi_spec. It is dense but well-structured, with no filler sentences. Slightly long due to technical details, but each section earns its place.

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 (5 operations, 10 params, pagination, filtering) and lack of output schema, the description covers the operation list, pagination contract, filter syntax, and confirm requirement. It appropriately delegates request-body schemas to unifi_spec, though that is a slight gap for full self-sufficiency.

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 schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant extra semantics by explaining the filter expression syntax (functions like eq, contains, and combinators and/or/not) and the pagination shape (offset, limit max 200, count, totalCount). It also clarifies that request bodies should be fetched via unifi_spec, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'body' 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 clearly states 'WiFi broadcasts (SSIDs) configuration' and explicitly enumerates five operations (list, create, delete, get, update) with read/create/destructive markers. This gives the agent a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from sibling tools like unifi_networks, unifi_devices, etc., which target different 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 operational details (pagination, filtering syntax, confirm requirement) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like unifi_networks or unifi_supporting. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer its purpose, but the description lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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