unifi_locate_device

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

The description adds valuable behavioral facts beyond the annotations: the locate is not auto-stopped, stopping requires enabled=False, LED state is not verified afterward, and execution requires explicit user intent and an API key. These are precisely the kind of caveats an agent needs and are not present in the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a prerequisite and the critical behavioral caveats. Each sentence contributes meaningful information, and the paragraph break separates the core summary from operational warnings effectively.

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?

While the behavioral caveats are strong, the description is incomplete for the tool's four parameters, especially dry_run and site. With zero schema description coverage, an agent cannot confidently know how to set dry_run or whether site is required in practice. The output schema existing reduces return-value concerns, but parameter guidance remains insufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the semantics of enabled ('use enabled=False to stop') and implicitly that true starts locating. It says nothing about device_id, site, or dry_run, leaving most parameters underdocumented.

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 names a specific action and resource: LED locate start/stop. It is clearly distinct from the sibling list/get/rename tools. The word 'Preview' adds some ambiguity about whether the tool actually executes or only simulates, but the overall purpose is identifiable.

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 gives operational guidance by saying 'use enabled=False to stop', which tells the agent how to stop a locate session. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The prerequisite about user intent and API key is useful context but not a usage-scoping guideline.

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