unifi-api

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

The description adds context about auto-detection of HTTP method and the generic nature of the tool, but beyond annotations (openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) does not disclose specific behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or potential destructive effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a concrete example and a pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 (generic API executor, 5 params, no output schema, openWorldHint), the description provides essential usage context but lacks information on return values, error handling, authentication, and potential side effects, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description reiterates parameter roles (path, pathParams, queryParams, body, method) but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, such as the auto-detection behavior already stated in method 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 the tool executes any UniFi Network API operation, provides an example path, and explicitly directs to the sibling tool unifi-api-schema for path discovery, distinguishing it from alternatives.

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 mentions auto-detection of HTTP method and recommends using unifi-api-schema for path discovery, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs unifi-legacy-client-stats or when to avoid it.

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